[Federal Register: May 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29414-29421]
[DOCID:fr21my08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28388; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-163-AD;
Amendment 39-15523; AD 2008-11-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and
-400ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. This AD
requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate
new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD would
also require 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 25, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 25,
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: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6497; 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 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72 FR
36391). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate 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 published Section 9 of the
Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9,
Revision April 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision April 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 April 2008 of the MPD adds additional
component maintenance manual (CMM) information to AWL No. 28-AWL-06.
Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this AD to
refer to Revision April 2008 of the MPD. We also have added a new
paragraph (j) to this AD specifying that actions done before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006
through March 2008 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    Revision April 2008 of the MPD specifies that the repetitive task
interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05 is 25,000 flight hours or 6 years,
whichever comes first. However, we have revised paragraph (g) of this
AD to specify that the repetitive task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05
is 72 months only. The 25,000-flight-hour interval will be removed from
that AWL in a future revision to the MPD. We have also revised the
initial threshold for accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-05 in Table 1 of
this AD.
    In Revision March 2008 of the MPD, Boeing removed the repetitive
task interval of 36,000 flight hours from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-
AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26. Therefore, we have removed reference to
36,000 total flight cycles from the initial threshold of AWLs No. 28-
AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26 in Table 1 of this AD and
revised the initial threshold 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.
    Operators should note that, in Revision March 2008 of the MPD,
Boeing also revised AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 to reflect the
new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning
protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS)
wire bundle installations.
    In Revision October 2007 of the MPD, Boeing revised the contents of
Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of the MPD. The
fuel system AWLs were removed from Subsection D and placed into a new
Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS.''
Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require the
incorporation of both Subsections D and E of Revision April 2008 of the
MPD.
    Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this
AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-
26 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 were added to
Revision October 2007 of the MPD; we might issue additional rulemaking
to require the incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an optional
action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD.

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 (i) to this AD to specify
that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless
they are part of a later approved revision of the Revision April 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
767 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-05, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26. The commenter states that the
flight-hour parameter does not adequately take into account actual
airplane usage, and that its long haul utilization of the airplane is
4,000 flight hours per year. Based on this number, the commenter states
that an AWL task due at 36,000 flight hours would need to be done in 9
years instead of 12 years.
    Qantas Airways notes 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 a certain number of flight cycles or a certain number
of 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 as identified by the
commenters. As stated previously, Revision April 2008 of the MPD gives
the repetitive intervals in calendar time. 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 April 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 April 2008 of the MPD.

Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for Certain AWLs

    Boeing, KLM, and Qantas Airways state that the loop resistance
values for AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 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 AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 in accordance with Revision
April 2008 of the MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD
accordingly.

Request To Correct Typographical Error in NPRM

    Boeing requests that we correct typographical errors in Table 1 of
NPRM. Boeing states that the digit ``2'' is missing from AWLs No. 28-
AWL-05, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26 in Table 1 of the NPRM.
    We agree that those typographical errors were published in the
Federal Register version of the NPRM. Since those errors occurred
during publication of the NPRM, we notified the Federal Register about
those errors on July 3, 2007. The errors should be corrected when this
AD is published in the Federal Register.

Request To Delegate Authority for Allowing Use of Equivalent Tools,
Components, Materials, and Equipment

    ABX Air requests that we delegate authority to a designated
engineering representative (DER) or delegation option authorization
(DOA) organization to approve the use of equivalent tools, components,
materials, and equipment for cases where the CMM does not state that an
equivalent item may be used. ABX Air believes that requiring approval
from the Seattle ACO for equivalent items not cited in the CMMs will
create an undue burden on operators. ABX Air states that there are
instances when a part or material called out in a CMM is unavailable on
the market, but an acceptable equivalent item is available; the
commenter states that it would be impossible to obtain approval from
the Seattle ACO for the equivalent item in a timely manner. ABX Air
also states that there are instances where there are common equivalent
items to items specified in a CMM. As an example, ABX Air points to a
certain CMM that lists the part number for a required notebook sheet
protector. ABX Air states that, according to the NPRM, a different
notebook sheet protector cannot be used unless it is approved by the
Seattle ACO. ABX Air believes that government regulation to this level
is unmanageable and does not provide an increased level of safety. ABX
Air also states that requiring a specific manufacturer of voltmeters,
common hardware, etc., does not add to the safety of the fleet of Model
767 airplanes. ABX Air also requests that we allow an operator or
repair station to acquire and use an equivalent item without Seattle
ACO approval, when the CMM states that the equivalent items may be used
and the operator or repair station has procedures for determining
equivalents.
    JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools
and chemical materials according to the 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 commenters' requests 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 items,
operators and repair stations may use equivalents. We have already
approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels specified in
Revision April 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.
    However, we disagree that DER/DOA organizations may approve
equivalent items if the CMM does not specifically allow equivalents
because current FAA Orders do not allow us to delegate approval of
changes to airworthiness limitations. The FAA is considering granting a
deviation from the order to allow manufacturer DER/DOA organizations to
approve CMMs in the future. Until such deviation is in place, all CMM
changes must be approved by the Seattle ACO. We have not changed this
AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Appendix 1

    Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM to reference
additional ATA sections, add additional airplane maintenance manual
(AMM) task titles and numbers, and correct certain AMM task titles and
numbers. The affected AWLs are No. 28-AWL-02, No. 28-AWL-03, No. 28-
AWL-07, No.

28-AWL-10, No. 28-AWL-12, No. 28-AWL-13, No. 28-AWL-17, No. 28-AWL-23,
No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-26.
    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 April 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

    KLM expects to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection
of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The commenter
states that if it does the inspection and does not reach the specified
values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be
necessary. The commenter also states that it would be helpful to plan
to do this inspection during an overhaul.
    We infer that the commenter requests 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
``4C'' 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 ``4C'' check can never be extended by
more than 30 days, which would force operators to do certain AWL
inspections outside of a ``4C'' 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 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
April 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 PMI or 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 card,'' 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 April 2008 of the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as parts
approved by PMA, have not been reviewed. We expect that such parts
might be found to be acceptable alternatives.
    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-18 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 53-01 and 53-21 of the Boeing 767 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 principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or pri ncipal avionics
inspector (PAI), or governing regulatory authority. No change to this
AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Approval of Service Bulletins

    ABX Air asks that we clarify whether a service bulletin will need
to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, if a manufacturer publishes
a service bulletin that modifies or repairs an affected component.
    If the modification or repair described in the service bulletin
affects compliance with this AD, then the service bulletin will need to
be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. 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 824 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 U.S.-
             Action                  Work           Parts            Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                    hours                            airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision....          8  None...............            $640             332        $212,480
Inspections.....................          8  None...............             640             332         212,480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

2008-11-01 Boeing: Amendment 39-15523. Docket No. FAA-2007-28388;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-163-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 25,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; with an
original standard airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued before April 22, 2006.

    Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or after April 22, 2006, must already be 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 (k) 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 April 2008 of the MPD,'' as used in this
AD, means Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision April 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) and (g)(2) 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; and
except that the task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05 is 72 months.
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 D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of
Revision April 2008 of the MPD.
    (2) Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,'' AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive,
of Revision April 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No.
28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28, as identified in Subsection E of
Revision April 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, ``AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of Revision April 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 clamps, wire      airworthiness
                                     chafing, and wire         certificate or the date
                                     bundles in contact with   of issuance of the
                                     the surface of the        original export
                                     center fuel tank.         certificate of
                                                               airworthiness.

28-AWL-05.........................  A special detailed        Within 72 months since    Within 60 months after
                                     inspection of the         the date of issuance of   the effective date of
                                     bulkhead fitting bond     the original standard     this AD.
                                     for the hydraulic line    airworthiness
                                     tank penetration.         certificate or the date
                                                               of issuance of the
                                                               original export
                                                               certificate of
                                                               airworthiness.
28-AWL-18.........................  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     airworthiness
                                     the out-of-tank fuel      certificate or the date
                                     quantity indicating       of issuance of the
                                     system to verify          original export
                                     functional integrity.     certificate of
                                                               airworthiness.
28-AWL-26.........................  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     airworthiness
                                     the out-of-tank surge     certificate or the date
                                     tank fuel level sensor    of issuance of the
                                     to verify functional      original export
                                     integrity.                certificate of
                                                               airworthiness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)
and (h) 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 April 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 (k) of this
AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD

    (j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning
Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision March 2006; Revision
October 2006; Revision January 2007; Revision October 2007; or
Revision March 2008; are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, 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

    (l) You must use Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision April 2008, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (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 May 8, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-10976 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43449-43451]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0620; Project Identifier 2019-SW-074-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal (HG) Model Cabri G2 helicopters
with certain part-numbered aluminum cooling fans (cooling fan)
installed. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of two occurrences
of in-flight shutdowns due to a crack and subsequent failure of the
cooling fan. This proposed AD would require removing certain part-
numbered cooling fans from service, or modifying certain part-numbered
cooling fans before exceeding a certain total hours time-in-service
(TIS), and installing newly designed cooling fans. This proposed AD
would also prohibit installing any affected cooling fan on any
helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
23, 2021.

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 https://www.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 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal, Basile Ginel, 1070, rue du
Lieutenant Parayre, A[eacute]rodrome d'Aix-en-Provence, 13290 Les
Milles, France; telephone 33-04-42-39-10-88; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web https://www.guimbal.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0620; 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 European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2021-0620; Project Identifier
2019-SW-074-AD'' 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
https://www.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
Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section,
Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7330; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0038, dated February 14, 2014
(EASA AD 2014-0038), to correct an unsafe condition for
H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal Model Cabri G2 helicopters. EASA
advises of a report of an in-flight engine shutdown caused by a failure
of the cooling fan. EASA further advises the failure of the cooling fan
was caused by a crack in the fan external ring. After EASA AD 2014-0038
was issued, a second occurrence was reported of an in-flight engine
shutdown caused by failure of the cooling fan, which was determined to
be caused by a crack on the cooling fan front flange.
    Accordingly, EASA issued EASA AD 2014-0196, dated September 2, 2014
(EASA AD 2014-0196), which retained the modification requirements of
EASA AD 2014-0038 and required repetitive inspections of the engine
cooling fan front flange and corrective actions depending on the
findings. After EASA issued EASA AD 2014-0196, further analysis
determined the crack was caused by the engine start/stop (ESS) cycles.
Therefore, EASA superseded EASA AD 2014-0196 with EASA AD 2016-0033,
dated February 24, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0033), which retained the
inspection and modification requirements of EASA AD 2014-0196 and
depending on the findings, required replacement of the affected part
pending approval of the newly designed part.
    After EASA issued EASA AD 2016-0033, HG developed a newly designed
engine cooling fan part number (P/N) G52-04-101, which consists of
composite materials having improved structural strength. Accordingly,
EASA superseded EASA AD 2016-0033 with EASA AD 2017-0039, dated
February

24, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0039), which retained the requirements of EASA
AD 2016-0033 and required replacing the affected cooling fans with the
newly designed cooling fan which terminates the repetitive inspections
from EASA AD 2016-0033.
    Since EASA issued EASA AD 2017-0039, HG issued a revision to its
service bulletin requiring a life limit requirement for the replacement
of the affected cooling fans. Accordingly, EASA superseded EASA AD
2017-0039 with EASA AD 2019-0187, dated July 31, 2019, and corrected
August 2, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0187). EASA AD 2019-0187 retains some of
the requirements in EASA AD 2017-0039 and requires a new compliance
time and life limit for the replacement of the affected part. EASA AD
2019-0187 also removes the modification and inspection requirements
which are covered by EASA AD 2019-0025, dated February 4, 2019.
    The unsafe condition described in the EASA ADs, if not addressed,
could result in failure of the cooling fan and subsequent engine in-
flight shut-down and reduced control of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 16-021, Revision E,
dated August 27, 2019. This service information specifies instructions
for retrofitting the cooling fan with the new front flange, aft ring,
and 24-hole pulley. This service information also specifies that upon
completion of all the required actions, the cooling fan assembly P/N
G52-00-000, P/N G52-00-001 and P/N G52-04-100 become P/N G52-04-101.
    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 the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 16-021, Revision
D, dated May 20, 2019, which is not incorporated by reference, and
which specifies procedures for accessing the cooling fan and removing
it from service; modifying, applying adhesive and torqueing the rear
flange; installing the improved cooling fan, and additional actions.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require removing from service any affected
part-numbered cooling fan. An alternative, for certain part-numbered
cooling fans, modifying the cooling fan before it exceeds a certain
total hours TIS.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and EASA AD 2019-0187

    EASA AD 2019-0187 allows certain cooling fans with certain total
hours TIS to be retrofitted before exceeding their life limit, whereas
this proposed AD would require removing these cooling fans from service
or as an alternate to removing them from service, modifying the cooling
fan before exceeding the total hours TIS. EASA AD 2019-0187 allows a
compliance time in months TIS to replace certain part-numbered cooling
fans, whereas this proposed AD would only allow hours TIS.
    EASA AD 2019-0187 retains the compliance time of March 10, 2017,
which is the effective date of EASA AD 2017-0039. This proposed AD
would require compliance within the effective date of this AD. The FAA
has determined that these compliance times are adequate to address the
identified unsafe condition.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 32 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the
following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
    Removing the affected cooling fan from service and installing the
newly designed cooling fan would take about 16 work-hours and parts
would cost about $4,600 for an estimated cost of $5,960 per replacement
and $190,720 for the U.S. fleet.

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, 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:

H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal: Docket No. FAA-2021-0620;
Project Identifier 2019-SW-074-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 23, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal (HG) Model
Cabri G2 helicopters, certificated in any category, the following
aluminum cooling fan (cooling fan) part number (P/N) installed:
    (1) P/N G52-00-000,
    (2) P/N G52-00-001 or P/N G52-04-100, if it is or has previously
been mounted on a 12-hole engine pulley P/N G52-10-100 or P/N G52-
10-101.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7100, Powerplant
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight engine shutdowns
due to a crack and subsequent failure of the cooling fan. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the cooling fan. This
condition, if not addressed, could result in an in-flight engine
shut-down and loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For Model Cabri G2 helicopters with cooling fan P/N G52-00-
000 installed, within 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD:
    (i) Remove the cooling fan from service by following the
Required Actions, Cooling Fan Removal, paragraphs (a) through (g),
of Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 16-021, Revision E, dated August 27,
2019 (SB 16-021 Rev E), except you are not required to discard any
parts.
    (ii) Install the improved cooling fan P/N G52-04-101 by
following the Required Actions, Cooling Fan Installation, paragraphs
(a) through (j), of SB 16-021 Rev E.
    (2) For Model Cabri G2 helicopters with a cooling fan P/N G52-
00-001 or P/N G52-04-100 that is mounted or was previously mounted
on a 12-hole engine pulley P/N G52-10-100 or P/N G52-10-101, and
with 1,500 or more total hours TIS, since first installation on a
helicopter, within 150 hours TIS after the effective date of this
AD:
    (i) Remove the cooling fan from service by following the
Required Actions, Cooling Fan Removal, paragraphs (a) through (g),
of SB 16-021 Rev E, except you are not required to discard any
parts, or remove the cooling fan by following the Required Actions,
Cooling Fan Removal, paragraphs (a) through (g), of SB 16-021 Rev E
and modify the cooling fan by following the Required Actions,
Cooling Fan Retrofit, paragraphs (a) through (h) of SB 16-021 Rev E.
    (ii) Install the improved cooling fan P/N G52-04-101 by
following the Required Actions, Cooling Fan Installation, paragraphs
(a) through (j), of SB 16-021 Rev E.
    (3) For Model Cabri G2 helicopters with a cooling fan P/N G52-
00-001 or P/N G52-04-100 that is mounted or was previously mounted
on a 12-hole engine pulley P/N G52-10-100 or P/N G52-10-101 and with
500 total hours TIS but with less than 1,500 total hours TIS, since
first installation on a helicopter, within 500 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD, perform the actions required by
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
    (4) For Model Cabri G2 helicopters with a cooling fan P/N G52-
00-001 or P/N G52-04-100 that is mounted or was previously mounted
on a 12-hole engine pulley P/N G52-10-100 or P/N G52-10-101 and with
less than 500 total hours TIS since first installation on a
helicopter, within 1,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this
AD, perform the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this AD.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any
cooling fan listed in paragraph (c) of this AD on any helicopter.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 16-021,
Revision D, dated May 20, 2019.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, 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 manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7330; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal, Basile Ginel, 1070, rue du
Lieutenant Parayre, A[eacute]rodrome d'Aix-en-Provence, 13290 Les
Milles, France; telephone 33-04-42-39-10-88; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web https://www.guimbal.com. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0187, dated July 31, 2019 and
corrected August 2, 2019. You may view the EASA AD on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2021-0620.

    Issued on July 30, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16684 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 50622]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2601-000]

Walleye Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Walleye Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 31, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 11, 2022..
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17687 Filed 8-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P