[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37807-37810]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12302]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1054; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01513-G]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH (Schempp-Hirth) Model Ventus-2a and
Ventus-2b gliders. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as the
uncommanded extraction of the airbrakes on one or both wings, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the glider. This proposed AD would
require repetitively inspecting airbrake bell cranks and airbrake drive
funnels for cracking, repetitively inspecting the clearance of the
airbrake control system, and taking corrective action as necessary.
This proposed AD would also require modifying the airbrake system,
which is terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by July 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1054; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the MCAI, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

Material Incorporated by Reference

     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstrasse 25, Kirchheim unter Teck,
Germany; phone: +49 7021 7298-0; email: hirth.com">[email protected]hirth.com;
website: schempp-hirth.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, International Validation Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1054; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-01513-G'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jim
Rutherford, Aviation Safety Engineer, International Validation Branch,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary
that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2022-0229, dated November 28, 2022 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on all Schempp-Hirth
Model Ventus-2a and Ventus-2b gliders. The MCAI states that permanent
excessive loads on the automatic connections of the airbrake control
system can cause damage to the drive funnels in the fuselage and to the
airbrake bell cranks at the root ribs of the wings. The MCAI requires
repetitively inspecting the airbrake bell cranks and drive funnels for
damage, inspecting the airbrake control system for clearance,
corrective actions if necessary, and modifying the airbrake control
system by replacing the airbrake bell cranks with reinforced airbrake
bell cranks and replacing airbrake drive funnels with reinforced drive
funnels. The MCAI states that this modification is terminating action
for the repetitive inspections.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the
uncommanded extraction of the airbrakes on one or both wings and result
in reduced control of the glider.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1054.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Schempp-Hirth Technical Note 349-43, dated August
9, 2022, which specifies procedures for inspecting the automatic
airbrake

control connections, including the airbrake bell cranks, for any crack
or damage at the welding seams, the airbrake drive funnels for any
crack or damage at the welding seams, and the clearance of the airbrake
control system, and modifying the airbrake control system by replacing
airbrake bell cranks with reinforced airbrake bell cranks and replacing
airbrake drive funnels with reinforced drive funnels.
    The FAA also reviewed Schempp-Hirth Working Instruction for
Technical Note 349-43, dated August 9, 2022 (Schempp-Hirth Working
Instruction TN 349-43), which specifies procedures for inspecting the
clearance of the airbrake control system in the wings, inspecting the
airbrake bell crank and airbrake drive funnel to determine if a
reinforced airbrake bell crank and a reinforced airbrake drive funnel
are already installed, replacing any airbrake bell crank that is not
reinforced with a mounting plate having a reinforced airbrake bell
crank attached, replacing any airbrake drive funnel that is not
reinforced with a reinforced airbrake drive funnel, checking the
control system of the wings after installation of any reinforced parts,
and adjusting the control system as necessary. This service information
also specifies contacting the manufacturer if it is determined that
there is interference among the components of the airbrake control
system and adjustments to the airbrake control system are needed.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information described above. The FAA is issuing
this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the MCAI, except as discussed under ``Differences Between this
Proposed AD and the Service Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Schempp-Hirth Working Instruction TN 349-43 specifies to contact
the manufacturer if it is determined that there is interference between
the components of the airbrake control system and adjustments to the
airbrake control system are needed. This proposed AD would require
doing those adjustments in accordance with a method approved by the
FAA; EASA; or Schempp-Hirth's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    Schempp-Hirth Working Instruction TN 349-43 specifies to purchase a
new mounting plate with a reinforced airbrake bell crank installed from
the manufacturer or its international representative. This proposed AD
would not specify the source from which new parts should be purchased.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 32 gliders of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Inspect airbrake bell cranks     4 work-hours x $85               $0  $340 per inspection  $10,880 per
 and drive funnels.                 per hour = $340.                     cycle.               inspection cycle.
* Inspect clearance of airbrake    4 work-hours x $85                0  $340 per inspection  $10,880 per
 control system.                    per hour = $340.                     cycle.               inspection cycle.
Replace airbrake bell cranks and   8 work-hours x $85            1,000  $1,680.............  $53,760.
 drive funnels.                     per hour = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The cost estimates provided for the inspection of the airbrake bell cranks and drive funnels and the
  inspection of the airbrake control system clearance are for the first occurrence. If no cracks are found, then
  the inspection is repeated at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service. The replacement of the bell
  cranks and drive funnels occurs if any cracking is found during the inspection (on-condition) or within 12
  months (required action), whichever occurs first.

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
The agency has no way of determining the number of gliders that might
need this action:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace airbrake bell cranks and drive funnels  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $1,000          $1,680
                                                 $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2023-1054; Project
Identifier MCAI-2022-01513-G.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by July 24, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH (Schempp-
Hirth) Model Ventus-2a and Ventus-2b gliders, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2760, Drag Control
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as the uncommanded
extraction of the airbrakes on one or both wings, possibly resulting
in reduced control of the glider. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address this condition. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in reduced control of the glider.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 40 days after the effective date of this AD and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS), do the actions in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
    (i) Inspect the airbrake bell cranks and airbrake drive funnels
for cracking at the welding seams, in accordance with Action
paragraphs 1a) and 1b) in Schempp-Hirth Technical Note 349-43, dated
August 9, 2022 (Schempp-Hirth TN 349-43).
    (ii) Inspect the clearance of the airbrake control system, in
accordance with Action paragraph 1c) in Schempp-Hirth TN 349-43; and
Action paragraph 1.c) in Schempp-Hirth Working Instruction for
Technical Note 349-43 dated August 9, 2022 (Schempp-Hirth Working
Instruction TN 349-43). Where Schempp-Hirth Working Instruction TN
349-43 specifies ``if in doubt'' use plasticine lines, this AD
requires using plasticine lines.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): This service information contains
German to English translation. The European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) used the English translation in referencing the
document from Schempp-Hirth. For enforceability purposes, the FAA
will refer to the Schempp-Hirth service information in English as it
appears on the document.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of
this AD, any cracking at the welding seams is detected, before next
flight, do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with
Action paragraph(s) 2a), 2b), 2c), and 2d), in Schempp-Hirth TN 349-
43; and Action paragraph(s) 2.a), 2.b), 2.c), and 2.d), in Schempp-
Hirth Working Instruction TN 349-43. Where Schempp-Hirth Working
Instruction TN 349-43 specifies to purchase a new mounting plate
with a reinforced airbrake bell crank installed from the
manufacturer or its international representative, this AD does not
specify the source from which new parts should be purchased.
    (3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii)
of this AD, it is determined that there is interference among the
components of the airbrake control system and adjustments to the
airbrake control system are needed, do those adjustments in
accordance with a method approved by the FAA; EASA; or Schempp-
Hirth's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (4) Unless already accomplished as required by paragraph (g)(2)
of this AD, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the airbrake bell cranks with reinforced airbrake bell
cranks and replace the airbrake drive funnels with reinforced drive
funnels, in accordance with Action paragraph 2d) in Schempp-Hirth TN
349-43; and Action paragraph(s) 2.a), 2.b), 2.c), and 2.d), in
Schempp-Hirth Working Instruction TN 349-43. Where Schempp-Hirth
Working Instruction TN 349-43 specifies to purchase a new mounting
plate with a reinforced airbrake bell crank installed from the
manufacturer or its international representative, this AD does not
specify the source from which new parts should be purchased.
    (5) Replacement on a glider of each airbrake bell crank and
airbrake drive funnel with a reinforced airbrake bell crank and a
reinforced airbrake drive funnel, as required by paragraph (g)(2) or
paragraph (g)(4) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for
that glider. The initial inspection is required for all gliders.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in Sec.  39.19. In accordance with Sec.  39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of
this AD or email to: [email protected]. If mailing
information, also submit information by email.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to EASA AD 2022-0229, dated November 28, 2022, for
related information. This EASA AD may be found in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1054.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, International Validation Branch, FAA, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329-
4165; email: [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note 349-43, dated
August 9, 2022.
    (ii) Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction for
Technical Note 349-43, dated August 9, 2022.
    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2): This service information contains
German to English translation. EASA used the English translation in
referencing the document from Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH. For
enforceability purposes, the FAA will refer to the Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH

service information in English as it appears on the document.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstrasse 25, Kirchheim unter
Teck, Germany; phone: +49 7021 7298-0; email: hirth.com">[email protected]hirth.com; website: schempp-hirth.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 2, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-12302 Filed 6-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 7773]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02249]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at North American
Electric Reliability Corporation Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the
following meetings:
    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Member
Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings, Board of
Trustees Compliance Committee, Corporate Governance and Human Resources
Committee, and Standards Oversight and Technology Committee Meetings.
    Hotel del Coronado, 1500 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA, 92118.
    Feb. 6 (7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.) and Feb. 7 (8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.),
2013.
    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:
http://www.nerc.com/calendar.php.
    The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may
address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:

Docket No. RC11-5, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RC11-6, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR08-4, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR13-1, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD09-11, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD10-2, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD12-3, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD12-5, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD13-1, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Inc. v. Western Electric Coordinating Council and North American
Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD13-2, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD13-3, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. EL13-22, PacifiCorp v. Western Electricity Coordinating
Council and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

    For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-
8529, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 24, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02249 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Fishing Model  Nested by Waterbody type ( Great Lake, River, Inland lake)

Average Variable Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err TRCOST  0.045  23.501  0.040  21.918  0.045  23.271  0.047  21.955  0.046  22.874  0.0443 TMCOST  1.223  7.199  1.617  7.707  1.383  7.558  1.442  7.531  1.707  7.413  1.4743 RMP 1.041 8.328 0.948 8.170 0.734 6.248 0.821 7.499 0.844 7.299 0.8777 LNGSIZE 0.696 4.413 0.787 5.913 1.020 8.069 1.022 7.213 1.016 7.585 0.9083 TKNP  0.390  2.585  0.613  4.022  0.647  4.412  0.701  4.293  0.571  3.505  0.5845 AWQC  0.351  2.278  0.668  4.331  0.590  3.686  0.526  3.424  0.729  4.772  0.5730 LNRSIZE 0.008 0.093 0.186 2.112 0.358 3.583 0.006 0.079 0.295 4.100 0.1706 FWGHT_ R 0.068 2.317 0.052 1.828 0.026 0.927 0.019 0.678 0.174 5.889 0.0678 LNLSIZE 0.740 1.907  0.039  0.278  0.213  1.867  0.101  0.655  0.139  0.848 0.0497 ERIE 0.677 9.734 0.973 9.617 0.848 10.230 0.725 9.930 0.833 9.964 0.8112 RIV 0.475 5.027 0.629 7.228 0.603 7.987 0.667 7.731 0.582 6.752 0.5910 LAKE 0.064 0.434 0.500 2.957 0.550 4.039 0.467 2.683 0.563 3.033 0.4287 Rsqd 0.468 0.460 0.473 0.467 0.468 0.4674 Boating Model  Nested by Great Lake and Inland Waterbodies ( Rivers, Lakes)

Average Variable Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err TRCOST  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.0443 TMCOST  0.255  3.158  0.347  4.272  0.374  4.747  0.484839  5.367  0.349  3.805  0.3618 FSHWGTG  0.104  1.504  0.084  1.100  0.137  1.890  0.166839  2.300  0.156  2.09  0.1296 LNSIZE 0.682 7.564 0.275 3.097 0.616 7.116 0.625 7.233 0.312 3.873 0.5019 TKN  1.226  7.208  1.265  7.100  1.064  6.185  1.210591  6.317  1.170  7.503  1.1872 AWQC  0.640  4.385 0.129 0.947  0.292  2.068  0.136727  0.977 0.081 0.588  0.1717 FSHWGTR  0.062  1.828 0.055 1.467  0.011  0.301 0.014 0.386 0.089 2.492 0.0168 ERIE 0.330 6.409 0.283 5.829 0.309 6.235 0.281 6.343 0.276 5.672 0.2958 INLND 0.137 3.656 0.071 1.878 0.107 3.263 0.065 2.030 0.062 1.798 0.0883 Rsqd 0.267 0.266 0.274 0.311 0.283 0.2802 Swimming Model  Nested by Great Lake and Inland Waterbodies ( Rivers, Lakes) Draw 0 1 2 3 4 Draw 0 1 2 3 4 Average Variable Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err TRCOST  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.0443 TMCOST  0.622  8.667  0.425  6.569  0.414  7.52  0.396  6.225  0.323778  6.056  0.4363 LAND 0.101 4.427 7.48E 02 3.009  0.004  0.182 4.95E 03 0.229 0.115 4.672 0.0581 PARK 0.677 3.699 1.085 5.393 0.289 1.426 1.285 6.357 0.427 2.075 0.7526 BEACH 0.835 5.180  0.113  0.612 1.207 6.826 0.208 1.178 0.315 2.23 0.4906 SIZE  0.304  6.889  0.174  4.626  0.167  3.875  0.416  8.724  0.306815  6.302  0.2734 TKNP  0.477  3.393  0.589  4.110  1.210  7.652  0.581  4.693  0.444412  3.306  0.6603 ERIE 0.663 7.726 0.636 7.788 0.569 7.092 0.700 7.593 1.082 7.134 0.7300 INLND 0.28000691 6.953 0.26582 6.952 0.219454 6.683 0.251514 5.816 0.356433 5.107 0.2746 Rsqd 0.420 0.405 0.419 0.391 0.40314 0.4076 Viewing Model  Flat Average Variable Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err Coef Coef/ Std Err TRCOST  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.044  0.0443 TIMCOST  0.776  12.771  0.756  12.729  0.724  12.821  0.676  12.434  0.665394  12.478  0.7194 GSZE 0.615 1.12E+ 01 0.671 10.186 0.582 9.22E+ 00 0.657 10.561 8.02E 01 11.237 0.6655 RSZE  0.320  6.319  0.134  2.715  0.211  4.620  0.401  6.716  0.236973  4.313  0.2607 LSZE  0.386  3.824  0.666  6.021  0.367  4.047  0.607  6.647  0.120248  1.104  0.4292 LN_ LNDAC 0.139 6.527 0.178 8.253 0.262 11.360 0.091 4.252 0.141 6.961 0.1621 TKN  0.823  4.411  0.549  3.365  0.955  6.600  0.589  3.796  0.640488  3.834  0.7113 PARK 1.017 5.955 0.182 1.071 6.29E 02 0.326 1.298 7.399 1.375 8.439 0.7871 Rsqd Draw 0 1 2 3 4 Draw 0 1 2 3 4


[Federal Register: August 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 46343-46344]
[DOCID:fr08au08-104]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on May 14, 2008, vol. 73, no. 94, page 27885.
The Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) incorporates data driven
quality control processes for validating and maintaining the
effectiveness of air carrier training program curriculum content.

DATES: Please submit comments by September 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Advanced Qualification Program (AQP).
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0701.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 18 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected monthly.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1.2 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 432 hours annually.
    Abstract: The Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) incorporates
data driven quality control processes for validating and maintaining
the effectiveness of air carrier training program curriculum content.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-18083 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14162-14164]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04340]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1159; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-028-AD;
Amendment 39-17368; AD 2013-04-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -222, -304, -322, and -324 airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a design review of the fuel tank access covers and
analyses comparing compliance of the access covers to different tire
burst models. `Type 21' panels located within the debris zone revealed
that they could not sustain the impact of the tire debris. This AD
requires modifying the wing manhole surrounds and replacing certain
fuel access panels. We are issuing this AD to prevent a possibility of
a fire due to tire debris impact on the fuel access panels.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 9, 2013.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 9, 2013

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2012 (77
FR 66762). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) states:

    Following a design review of the fuel tank access covers and
further analyses aiming at comparing compliance of the access covers
to different tyre burst models, panels `Type 21' revealed to be a
matter of concern when located within the tyre debris zone. It has
been demonstrated that 'Type 21' Super Plastic Formed (SPF) panels
for fuel access, installed on left hand (LH) and right hand (RH)
wings at manhole positions No. 1 and No. 2 of A310 aeroplanes pre-
MSN500 could not sustain in an acceptable manner the impact of tyre
debris.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result, following tyre
debris impact, in fuel leaking and consequently fire on that area of
the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA)] AD requires the replacement of SPF `Type 21' access
panels with [type 11 access panels with]`Type 11A' [associated clamp
plates] or `Type 21R' access panels and concurrent modification of
the manhole surrounds at positions No.1 and No.2 to prevent re-
installation of 'Type 21' panels at those positions.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 66762, November 7,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 56 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 40 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $6,340 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $545,440, or $9,740 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 66762, November 7,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-04-10 Airbus: Amendment 39-17368. FAA-2012-1159; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-028-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 9,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -222, -304, -
322, and -324 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer
serial numbers 0378, 0392, 0399, 0404, 0406, 0407, 0409, 0410, 0412,
0413, 0416, 0418, 0419, 0421, 0422, 0424, 0425, 0427, 0428, 0429,
0431, 0432, 0434 to 0437 inclusive, 0439, 0440, 0441, 0443 to 0449
inclusive, 0451 to 0454 inclusive, 0456, 0457, 0458, 0467, 0472,
0473, 0475, 0476, 0478, 0480 to 0485 inclusive, and 0487 to 0499
inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review of the fuel tank access
covers and analyses comparing compliance of the access covers to
different tire burst models. ``Type 21'' panels located within the
debris zone revealed that they could not sustain the impact of the
tire debris. We are proposing this AD to prevent a possibility of a
fire due to tire debris impact on the fuel access panels.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Actions

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Modify the wing manhole surrounds and replace the super
plastic formed (SPF) ``Type 21'' fuel access panels at positions 1
and 2 on the left- and right-hand wings with ``Type 11'' fuel access
panels with associated ``Type 11A'' clamp plates, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-57-2097, Revision 01, dated September 29, 2011.
    (2) Modify the wing manhole surrounds and replace the SPF ``Type
21'' fuel access panels at positions 1 and 2 on the left- and right-
hand wings with ``Type 21R'' fuel access panels, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2033, dated July 15, 1989.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After accomplishing the modification required by paragraph (g)
of this AD, no person may install SPF ``Type 21'' fuel access panels
at positions 1 and 2 on the left- and right-hand wings, on any
airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0016, dated January 26, 2012, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD,
for related information.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2033, dated July 15, 1989.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2097, Revision 01,
dated September 29, 2011.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2033, dated July 15, 1989.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2097, Revision
01, dated September 29, 2011.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-04340 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25990-25997]
[DOCID:fr08my08-9]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28386; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-162-AD;
Amendment 39-15512; AD 2008-10-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. This AD
requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating
new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also
requires the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections
to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This AD results
from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD
to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused
by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a
fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6501; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. That
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72 FR
36385). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the
initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in
those inspections, and repair if necessary.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary Revision (TR)
09-010, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-010 is published as Section 9 of
the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-
9, Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision March 2008
of the MPD''). The NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of the MPD as
the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the
proposed actions. Revision March 2008 of the MPD, among other actions,
includes the following changes:
     Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight
hours from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10.
     Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop
resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the
unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wire bundle
installations.
     Adds new AWLs No. 28-AWL-30, No. 28-AWL-31, and No. 28-
AWL-32 to incorporate new critical design configuration control
limitations (CDCCLs) for the electronic fuel level indication system
(EFLI) for Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with an auxiliary
fuel tank.
    Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this
AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of the MPD. We also have removed
reference to 36,000 total flight cycles from Table 1 of this AD and
revised the initial threshold for accomplishing AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No.
28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10 to within 144 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date
of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. (The
NPRM incorrectly specified 36,000 total ``flight cycles'' instead of
``flight hours.'')
    We also have added a new paragraph (k) to this AD specifying that
actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
Revisions March 2006 through November 2007 of the MPD are acceptable
for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD.
    Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this
AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-
23 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-24, No. 28-AWL-25, No. 28-AWL-26, No. 28-
AWL-27, No. 28-AWL-28, and No. 28-AWL-29 were added in other revisions
of the MPD after March 2006 and before March 2008. We have issued a
separate NPRM that proposes to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-25 into the
FAA-approved maintenance program. We have also issued a separate NPRM
that proposes to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-27 into the FAA-approved
maintenance program. Those NPRMs were published in the Federal Register
on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5770 and 5773, respectively). We might issue
additional rulemaking to require the incorporation of AWLs No. 28-AWL-
24, No. 28-AWL-26, No. 28-AWL-28, and No. 28-AWL-29. However, as an
optional action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.
    Further, we have added a new paragraph (i) to this AD, which
requires the incorporation of AWLs No. 28-AWL-30, No. 28-AWL-31, and
No. 28-AWL-32 on Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with an
auxiliary fuel tank. Since none of these airplanes are on the U.S.
Register, this change does not impose an additional burden on any U.S.
operators.

Other Changes Made to This AD

    We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify that the
actions identified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance
time specified in that table. Also, for standardization purposes, we
have revised this AD in the following ways:
     We have added a new paragraph (j) to this AD to specify
that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be
used unless they are part of a later approved revision of Revision
March 2008 of the MPD, or unless they are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is
intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations
changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued
with the original type certificate.
     We have revised Note 2 of this AD to clarify that an
operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot
accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the
required inspections.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the six commenters.

Request To Allow Inspections Done According to a Maintenance Program

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we revise paragraph (h) of the
NPRM to allow an operator to update its FAA-approved maintenance
program to include the initial inspections and repair for certain AWLs.
JAL states that the NPRM would require accomplishing the initial
inspection and repair of certain AWLs, which would require JAL to
establish a special inspection and special recordkeeping for the
proposed requirement.
    The compliance times specified in paragraph (h) of this AD are
intended to provide a grace period for those airplanes that have
already exceeded the specified threshold in the MPD. To be in
compliance with the recording requirements of this AD, operators must
record their compliance with the initial inspection for those airplanes
over the specified threshold. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD
to specify that accomplishing the applicable AWLs as

part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable
compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements
of that paragraph.

Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on behalf of several operators,
requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain
airworthiness limitation item (ALI) intervals with the applicable
maintenance significant item (MSI) and enhanced zonal analysis
procedure (EZAP) intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777
airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI
intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among
other changes, the proposal recommends revising certain AWL inspection
intervals from 12 years/36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for Model
747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes.
    Qantas Airways also requests that the 36,000-flight-hour parameter
be removed from the inspection interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-
AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10. The commenter states that the flight-hour
parameter does not adequately take into account actual airplane usage,
and that the long haul utilization of the airplane is 5,000 to 6,000
flight hours per year. Based on this number, the commenter states that
the AWL tasks would be required at 6 years instead of 12 years.
    Qantas Airways and Lufthansa both note an inconsistency between the
inspection interval specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD and the
compliance threshold specified in Table 1 of the NPRM. Table 1 of the
NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial inspection within 36,000 total
flight cycles or 144 months since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.
Qantas Airways would welcome the change from ``flight hours'' to
``flight cycles,'' if the flight-hour parameter is not deleted from the
inspection intervals specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD.
    We have reviewed the commenter's requests, and we agree to revise
the compliance threshold for certain AWLs identified by the commenters.
As stated previously, Revision March 2008 of the MPD specifies a
repetitive interval of 144 months. We have revised the threshold
specified in Table 1 of this AD accordingly.

Request To Harmonize Task Descriptions

    JAL states that, in Revision March 2006 of the MPD, the task
descriptions defining the applicable area are different for AWLs Nos.
28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02. (AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is a repetitive inspection
of the external wires over the center fuel tank, and AWL No. 28-AWL-02
is a CDCCL to maintain the original design features for the external
wires over the center fuel tank.) JAL believes that the task
descriptions for these AWLs should match. JAL presumes that, if one
purpose for the inspection is to prevent a spark in the fuel vapor over
the center fuel tank, then the applicable area should have a certain
tolerance instead of defining the area by exact station number.
    We agree that the task descriptions for AWL Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-
AWL-02 should be harmonized. Revision March 2008 of the MPD includes a
revised task description of AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which addresses JAL's
comments. As stated previously, we have revised this AD to refer to
Revision March 2008 of the MPD.

Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03

    Boeing, KLM, Lufthansa, and Qantas Airways state that the loop
resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 specified in Revision March
2006 of the MPD are going to be revised, since those values are
relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state that the
revised values will be more representative of the expected values for
in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h) of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in
accordance with a later revision of the MPD if the revision is approved
by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
    We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values
for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of the
MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise Estimated Costs

    Qantas Airways states that the work-hour estimates provided in the
NPRM seem too small. The commenter has submitted its estimates for AWLs
No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, No. 28-AWL-10, No. 28-AWL-17, and No. 28-
AWL-21.
    We infer the commenter requests that we revise the ``Costs of
Compliance'' section of this AD to reflect its estimates. We agree to
include the work-hour estimates for the initial accomplishment of AWLs
No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10 in this AD. We have not
included the estimate for AWL No. 28-AWL-17, since this AD does not
need to require the initial inspection of that AWL to phase in the
inspection. The initial inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-17 should have
been previously accomplished as part of the existing FAA-approved
maintenance program. We also have not included the estimate for AWL No.
28-AWL-21 because incorporation of that AWL has been postponed, as
specified in Revision 24, dated June 2006, of the MPD.

Request To Clarify Use of Equivalent Tools and Chemicals

    JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools
and chemical materials according to the component maintenance manuals
(CMMs). JAL states that normally operators can use equivalents without
FAA approval when the CMM specifies that equivalents may be used. JAL
also states that it has received further clarification from Boeing
specifying that unless a CDCCL refers to a certain tool by part number
or certain chemicals by name, an operator can continue to use
equivalent tools or materials according to the CMMs.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request and are working with Boeing
to provide appropriate flexibility while still ensuring that items
critical for maintaining safety continue to be specifically identified
in the CMMs. However, to delay issuance of this AD would be
inappropriate.
    We agree that when the CMMs allow use of equivalent tools or
chemical materials, operators and repair stations may use equivalents.
We have already approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels
specified in Revision March 2008 of the MPD, including the use of
equivalent tools or chemicals where the CMMs state equivalents are
allowed. If the CMM does not allow use of an equivalent, none may be
used. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise Appendix 1

    Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM as follows:
(1) Reference an additional ATA section for AWL No. 28-AWL-02, (2)
correct the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) task titles and numbers
for AWL No. 28-AWL-09, (3) correct the AMM task number for AWL No. 28-
AWL-10, (4) delete certain information from the ATA section for AWL No.
28-AWL-21, and

(4) add AMM task titles and numbers for AWL No. 28-AWL-23.
    JAL requests that we update Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all
AWLs specified in the MPD, and that we indicate how to maintain the
latest version of Appendix 1. JAL also requests that we correct the
following error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For AWL No. 28-AWL-04,
change ``SWPM 20-10-15'' to ``SWPM 20-10-13.''
    We disagree with revising the AMM references, since we have deleted
Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose of Appendix 1 was to assist
operators in identifying the AMM tasks that could affect compliance
with a CDCCL. However, we have also received several similar comments
regarding the appendices in other NPRMs that address the same unsafe
condition on other Boeing airplanes. Those comments indicate that
including non-required information in those NPRMs has caused confusion.
Further, Revision March 2008 of the MPD contains most of the updated
information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we
have removed Appendix 1 from this AD.

Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03

    Lufthansa and KLM expect to have problems accomplishing the initial
inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The
commenters state that if they do the check and do not reach the
specified values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be
necessary. The commenters also state that it would be helpful to plan
to do this inspection during an overhaul.
    We infer that the commenters request that we extend the grace
period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in Table 1 of this AD to allow
accomplishing the initial inspection during a regularly scheduled ``D''
check (about 6 years). We disagree with extending the grace period to 6
years. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we
considered the safety implications, the rate of lightning strikes in
the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In consideration of these
items, we have determined that an initial compliance time of 144 months
(as discussed previously) with a grace period of 24 months will ensure
an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the grace period for
AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard.

Request To Extend the Exceptional Short-Term Extension

    Qantas Airways requests that we allow exceptional short-term
extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is
less, for AWL tasks. The commenter believes that the exceptional short-
term extension of 30 days, which is specified in Revision March 2006 of
the MPD, is too small for AWL tasks having 12-year intervals. The
commenter states that, as part of the Boeing 747 Corrosion Prevention
and Control Program mandated by AD 90-25-05, amendment 39-6790 (55 FR
49268, November 27, 1990), operators were given a provision to invoke
exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or
6 months, whichever is less. The commenter states that this is a more
appropriate magnitude because operators are often permitted one-time
exceptional extensions to maintenance checks and tasks of this
proportion. The commenter also states that limiting the extension
period to 30 days means that a ``D'' check can never be extended by
more than 30 days, which would force operators to do certain AWL
inspections outside of a ``D'' check.
    We disagree with the commenter's request because exceptional short-
term extensions are, in essence, pre-approved extensions without
Seattle ACO review of the specifics of the situation. We consider that
the ability to extend the interval without further approval for 30 days
should be sufficient for most circumstances. However, if an operator
finds that it needs an extension longer than 30 days, with appropriate
justification one may be requested from the Seattle ACO, or governing
regulatory authority. Longer extensions may be granted on a case-by-
case basis because, as Qantas Airways points out, the task interval is
long, and the FAA is interested in limiting out-of-sequence work. We
have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Add Applicability to Table 1

    Lufthansa states that the applicability of AWL inspections should
be included in Table 1 of the AD.
    We disagree because the AWL inspections listed in Table 1 of this
AD are applicable to all airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this
AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM

    JAL requests that we revise the NPRM to require incorporation of
the latest revision of the manufacturer's AMM. JAL asserts that we have
allowed Boeing to include statements in the Boeing AMM allowing
operators to use certain CMM revision levels or later revisions. JAL
states that, with the exception of the CMM, operators cannot find what
revision level of the AMM needs to be incorporated into the operator's
AMM in order to comply with the proposed requirements of the NPRM. JAL
also states that it could take several weeks to incorporate the
manufacturer's AMM.
    JAL further requests that we clarify whether it is acceptable to
change the procedures in the AMM with Boeing's acceptance. JAL states
that the MPD notes that any use of parts, methods, techniques, or
practices not contained in the applicable CDCCL and AWL inspection must
be approved by the FAA office that is responsible for the airplane
model type certificate, or applicable regulatory agency. JAL also
states that the Boeing AMM or CMM notes to obey the manufacturer's
procedures when doing maintenance that affects a CDCCL or AWL
inspection. However, JAL believes that according to the NPRM it is
acceptable to change the AMM procedures with Boeing's acceptance.
    We disagree with the changes proposed by the commenter. This AD
does not require revising the AMM. This AD does require revising your
maintenance program to incorporate the AWLs identified in Revision
March 2008 of the MPD. However, complying with the AWL inspections or
CDCCLs will require other actions by operators including AMM revisions.
In the U.S., operators are not required to use original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) maintenance manuals. Operators may develop their own
manuals, which are reviewed and accepted by the FAA Flight Standards
Service. In order to maintain that flexibility for operators, most of
the AWLs contain all of the critical information, such as maximum
bonding resistances and minimum separation requirements. The FAA Flight
Standards Service will only accept operator manuals that contain all of
the information specified in the AWLs, so there is no need to require
operators to use the OEM maintenance manuals.
    Regarding JAL's request for clarification of approval of AWL
changes, we infer JAL is referring to the following sentence located in
the ``Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of
the NPRM: ``A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be made
without approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, through an appropriate
FAA principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics
inspector (PAI), by the governing regulatory authority, or by using the
operator's standard process for revising maintenance manuals.'' If
changes need to be made to tasks associated with an AWL, they may be

made using an operator's normal process without approval of the Seattle
ACO, as long as the change maintains the information specified in the
AWL. For some CDCCLs, it was beneficial to not put all the critical
information into the MPD. This avoids duplication of a large amount of
information. In these cases, the CDCCL refers to a specific revision of
the CMM. U.S. operators are required to use those CMMs. Any changes to
the CMMs must be approved by the Seattle ACO.

Request To Revise Note 2

    Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 of the NPRM to clarify the
need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult
to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC
to the required MPD AWLs might be required if an operator has
previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the
limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 as follows:
     Add the words ``according to paragraph (g)'' at the end of
the first sentence.
     Replace the words ``revision to'' with ``deviation from''
in the last sentence.
     Delete the words ``(g) or'' and ``as applicable'' from the
last sentence.
    As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 2 of
this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the
commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note.
Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Delete Reference to Task Cards

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests that we delete the words ``and
task cards,'' unless the task card references are listed in Subsection
D of the MPD or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words are located in the
following sentence in the ``Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System
AWLs'' section of the NPRM: ``Operators that do not use Boeing's
revision service should revise their maintenance manuals and task cards
to highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance
personnel are complying with the CDCCLs.'' ANA believes that if a task
card refers to the AMM, which includes the CDCCL note, then
highlighting the CDCCL items is not necessary because they are already
highlighted in the AMM and maintenance personnel always refer to the
AMM. ANA further states that the applicable task card references are
not listed in Subsection D of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the NPRM;
they refer only to the AMM. ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult
to find out or distinguish the affected task card.
    JAL believes that the proposed requirement regarding the CDCCLs is
to incorporate the manufacturer's maintenance manuals into an
operator's maintenance manual. If the description of a CDCCL is missing
from the manufacturer's AMM, then JAL believes that operators are not
responsible for the requirements of the AD.
    We agree that the task cards might not need to be revised because
an operator might find that the AMM notes are sufficient. However, we
disagree with deleting the reference to the task cards since some
operators might need to add notes to their task cards. This AD does not
require any changes to the maintenance manuals or task cards. The AD
requires incorporating new AWLs into the operator's maintenance
program. It is up to the operator to determine how best to ensure
compliance with the new AWLs. In the ``Ensuring Compliance with Fuel
Tank System AWLs'' section of the NPRM, we were only suggesting, not
requiring, ways that an operator could implement CDCCLs into its
maintenance program. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Meaning of Task Cards

    JAL requests that we clarify whether ``task cards,'' as found in
the ``Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the
NPRM, means Boeing task cards only or if they also include an
operator's unique task cards.
    We intended that ``task cards'' mean both Boeing and an operator's
unique task cards, as applicable. The intent is to address whatever
type of task cards are used by mechanics for maintenance. This AD would
not require any changes to the AMMs or task cards relative to the
CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways an operator might implement CDCCLs
into its maintenance program. No change to this AD is necessary in this
regard.

Request To Delete Reference to Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts

    ANA requests that we delete the words ``Any use of parts (including
the use of parts manufacturer approval (PMA) approved parts),'' unless
a continuous supply of CMM specified parts is warranted or the FAA is
open 24 hours to approve alternative parts for in-house repair by the
operator. Those words are located in the following sentence in the
``Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the NPRM:
``Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA) approved parts), methods, techniques, and practices not contained
in the CMMs needs to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or
governing regulatory authority.''
    ANA states that in some cases the parts specified in the CMMs
cannot be obtained from the parts market or directly from the component
vendor, so an operator is forced into using alternative parts to keep
its schedule. ANA requests that we direct the component vendor to
ensure a continuous supply of CMM parts and to direct the component
vendor to remedy a lack of parts if parts are not promptly supplied.
ANA further requests that we direct the component vendor to promptly
review the standard parts and allow use of alternative fasteners and
washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA asserts that, in some cases, a
component vendor specifies an uncommon part to preserve its monopoly.
    We disagree with revising the ``Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank
System AWLs'' section of the NPRM. We make every effort to identify
potential problems with the parts supply, and we are not aware of any
problems at this time. The impetus to declare overhaul and repair of
certain fuel tank system components as CDCCLs arose from in-service
pump failures that resulted from repairs not done according to OEM
procedures. We have approved the use of the CMMs--including parts,
methods, techniques, and practices--at the revision levels specified in
Revision March 2008 of the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as parts
approved by PMA, have not been reviewed.
    An operator may submit a request to the Seattle ACO, or governing
regulatory authority, for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that use of an alternative part would provide
an acceptable level of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict where repairs
can be performed, so an operator may do the work in-house as long as
the approved CMMs are followed. If operators would like to change those
procedures, they can request approval of the changes. The FAA makes
every effort to respond to operators' requests in a timely manner. If
there is a potential for disrupting the flight schedule, the operator
should include that information in its request. Operators should
request approval for the use of PMA parts and alternative procedures
from the FAA or the governing regulatory authority in advance in order
to limit schedule

disruptions. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Identify Other Test Equipment

    JAL states that certain test equipment is designated in the MPD and
that additional equipment should also be designated. For example, AWL
No. 28-AWL-03 would require using loop resistance tester, part number
(P/N) 906-10246-2 or -3. Therefore, JAL requests that we also identify
alternative test equipment, so that operators do not need to seek an
AMOC to use other equipment.
    We disagree with identifying other test equipment. We cannot
identify every possible piece of test equipment. We ensure that some
are listed as recommended by the manufacturer. With substantiating
data, operators can request approval of an alternative tester from the
Seattle ACO, or the governing regulatory agency. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify AWL No. 28-AWL-02

    JAL requests that we clarify the intent of AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL
states that Chapters 53-21 and 53-01 of the Boeing AMM specify doing an
inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank according to
AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing
tank based on AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL also states that, according to
Revision March 2006 of the MPD, AWL No. 28-AWL-02 contains two
limitations: maintaining the existing wire bundle routing and clamping,
and installing any new wire bundle per the Boeing standard wiring
practices manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL believes it is not necessary to
inspect the external wires over the center fuel tank according to AMM
28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing tank,
unless that wire bundle routing and clamping are changed.
    We point out that AWL No. 28-AWL-02 also contains a third
limitation: verifying that all wire bundles over the center fuel tank
are inspected according to AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which refers to AMM 28-
11-00 for accomplishing the inspection. We do not agree that the
inspection should be required only if the wire bundle routing and
clamping are changed while maintenance is accomplished in the area. If
any of the other bundles have a clamp or routing failure, it must be
detected and corrected. After accomplishing the inspection required by
AWL No. 28-AWL-01, an operator would not need to repeat the inspection
for another 12 years. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request for Clarification for Recording Compliance With CDCCLs

    JAL requests that we clarify the following sentence: ``An entry
into an operator's existing maintenance record system for corrective
action is sufficient for recording compliance with CDCCLs, as long as
the applicable maintenance manual and task cards identify actions that
are CDCCLs.'' That sentence is located in the ``Recording Compliance
with Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL
asks whether an operator must indicate the CDCCL in their recording
documents or whether it is sufficient for the recording document to
call out the applicable AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs.
    We have coordinated with the FAA Flight Standards Service and it
agrees that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the applicable AMMs and
task cards identify the CDCCL, then the entry into the recording
documents does not need to identify the CDCCL. However, if the
applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not identify the CDCCL, then they
must be identified. Other methods may be accepted by the appropriate
FAA PMI or PAI, or governing regulatory authority. No change to this AD
is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 596 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at
an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                     Cost per          U.S.-
            Action               Work hours          Parts           airplane       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision.               8  None.............            $640              57         $36,480
Initial accomplishment of AWL               6  None.............             480              57          27,360
 28-AWL-01.
Initial accomplishment of AWL              32  None.............           2,560              57         145,920
 28-AWL-03.
Initial accomplishment of AWL               2  None.............             180              57           9,120
 28-AWL-10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-10-06 Boeing: Amendment 39-15512. Docket No. FAA-2007-28386;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-162-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 12,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F
series airplanes, certificated in any category; with an original
standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued before April 12, 2006.

    Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or after April 12, 2006, must be already in compliance with the
airworthiness limitations specified in this AD because those
limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness
certification of those airplanes.

    Note 2: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion
and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Service Information Reference

    (f) The term ``Revision March 2008 of the MPD,'' as used in this
AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-010, dated March 2008.
Boeing TR 09-010 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, Revision March
2008.

Maintenance Program Revision

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program by incorporating the information in the
subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD; except that the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of
this AD must be done at the compliance times specified in Table 1.
Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of
the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA.
    (1) Subsection B, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS (AWLs)--SYSTEMS,''
of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
    (2) Subsection C, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,'' of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
    (3) Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,''
AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-23 inclusive, of Revision
March 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-24
through No. 28-AWL-29 inclusive, as identified in Subsection D of
Revision March 2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated into the
FAA-approved maintenance program.

Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary

    (h) Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the
compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any
discrepancy, in accordance with Subsection D of Revision March 2008
of the MPD. The repair must be done before further flight.
Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance
with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of
compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Accomplishing the inspections identified in Table 1 of this AD as
part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable
compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD constitutes
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

    Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

    Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed
inspection is: ``An intensive examination of a specific item,
installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of
specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate
cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be
required.''

                                          Table 1.--Initial Inspections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
            AWL No.                     Description        -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Threshold                 Grace period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28-AWL-01.....................  A detailed inspection of    Within 144 months since    Within 72 months after
                                 external wires over the     the date of issuance of    the effective date of
                                 center fuel tank for        the original standard      this AD.
                                 damaged or loose clamps,    airworthiness
                                 wire chafing, and wire      certificate or the date
                                 bundles in contact with     of issuance of the
                                 the surface of the center   original export
                                 fuel tank.                  certificate of
                                                             airworthiness.
28-AWL-03.....................  A special detailed          Within 144 months since    Within 24 months after
                                 inspection of the           the date of issuance of    the effective date of
                                 lightning shield to         the original standard      this AD.
                                 ground termination on the   airworthiness
                                 out-of-tank fuel quantity   certificate or the date
                                 indicating system to        of issuance of the
                                 verify functional           original export
                                 integrity.                  certificate of
                                                             airworthiness.

28-AWL-10.....................  A special detailed          Within 144 months since    Within 60 months after
                                 inspection of the fault     the date of issuance of    the effective date of
                                 current bond of the         the original standard      this AD.
                                 fueling shutoff valve       airworthiness
                                 actuator of the center      certificate or the date
                                 wing tank to verify         of issuance of the
                                 electrical bond.            original export
                                                             certificate of
                                                             airworthiness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorporation of Additional AWLs for Certain Airplanes

    (i) For Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with an
auxiliary fuel tank: Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-
approved maintenance program by incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-30,
No. 28-AWL-31, and No. 28-AWL-32 of Subsection D of Revision March
2008 of the MPD. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a
later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if
the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    (j) After accomplishing the applicable actions specified in
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, no alternative inspections,
inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections,
intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision March
2008 of the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or
unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD

    (k) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 MPD Document,
D621U400-9, Revision 23, dated March 2006; Revision 24, dated June
2006; Revision November 2006; Revision December 2006; Revision
December 2006 R1; Revision May 2007; Revision October 2007; or
Revision November 2007; are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Boeing Temporary Revision 09-010, dated March
2008, to the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document, D621U400-9, to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing Temporary Revision 09-010 is
published as Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning
Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, Revision March 2008.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-9897 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P