EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Kerry Leifer<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

Valent BioSciences LLC

IN-11559

	EPA has received a pesticide petition IN-11559 from Valent BioSciences LLC, 1910 Innovation Way, Suite 100, Libertyville, Il, 60048 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.920 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for malic acid (CAS Reg. No. 6915-15-7) in or on the raw agricultural commodities.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Malic acid is an organic acid naturally found in plants, especially in apples and other fruits and vegetables.  In plants, malic acid (MA) is metabolized in mitochondria, acts as a common reserve anion in the plant vacuole, and is a counter ion for K and Ca cations, especially in nitrate-dependent plants

	2. Analytical method. As an exemption from tolerance is being requested, an analytical method to look for malic acid in food crops is not considered necessary.  Nevertheless, there are multiple analytical methods available in the literature, which have been used to measure malic acid content of fruits and other crops. Malic Acid has been detected and quantified, in general foods and in fruits and fruit derivatives using fluorometry, GC, gas-liquid chromatography, thin layer chromatography (TLC), paper chromatography, polarimetry, manometry, and ion exchange plus ultraviolet (UV), and in synthetic mixtures of food acids using TLC, thin layer electrophoresis plus chromatography, and fluorometry.

	3. Magnitude of residues. [An exemption from tolerance is being requested as natural compound found in fruits and vegetables and already permitted in foods at levels higher than would be found on a crop by the use of malic acid as an inert. ]

B. Toxicological Profile

 Acute toxicity.   Mouse LD50 oral 1600 mg/kg  Rabbit LD50 oral 3000 mg/kg                    Malic acid and its salts are considered as strongly irritant to the skin and mucosa.          Malic acid in its pure form can cause serious eye damage.

	2. Genotoxicty. [Malic Acid was not mutagenic across a range of genotoxicity tests.  An Ames test was performed to determine the mutagenic potential of Malic Acid in phosphate buffer, ·10.0 mg/plate, using S. typhimurium strains TA92, TA1535, TA100, TA1537, TA94, and TA98 with metabolic activation (Ishidate et al. 1984). Testing was done in duplicate. Malic Acid was not mutagenic.  A chromosomal aberration test was performed without metabolic activation using a Chinese hamster . broblast cell line to determine the mutagenic potential of ·1.0 mg/ml Malic Acid in physiological saline (Ishidate et al. 1984). The incidence of polyploid cells and cells with structural chromosomal aberrations was 0% and 1%, respectively, after 48 hours. Malic Acid was not mutagenic.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Malic acid did not cause reproductive toxicity in mice, rats, or rabbits.  In a tow generation reproductive study, the second generation, receiving malic acid their entire development no "meaningful differences" between test and control animals in the number and placement of implantation and resorption sites or in the number, weight, or length of live neonates, and none of the neonates died. The skeletal development of the neonates was similar between test and control animals. Slight differences in developmental indices were "considered to be within the range of normal variations in fetal development. No trends toward lesser or greater skeletal development were observed."

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [The studies conducted have centered on developmental and reproductive effects and on chronic toxicity.  None of these studies have produced toxicological endpoints of concern]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [In a chronic oral study, feeding malic acid to rats resulted only in weight gain changes and changes in feed consumption.  Groups of 30 male and 30 female Charles River rats were fed 500, 5000, or 50,000 ppm (0.05%, 0.5%, and 5.0%, respectively).   Malic Acid for 104 weeks, and a control group of 60 male and 60 female rats was given untreated feed.  Significant changes were not observed in hematological, blood, or urine parameters. Significant lesions were not found at gross and microscopic examination]

	6. Animal metabolism. [Malic acid is involved in the Krebs cycle and other metabolic proceses. The Krebs cycle is a process the body uses to make energy] The amount of radioactivity recovered after oral and IP administration of DL-Malic Acid was 3.1% and 8.8% in the urine and 0.6% and 0.3% in the feces, respectively, and the amount recovered after oral and IP administration of L-Malic Acid was 3.2% and 3.1% in the urine and 1.4% and 1.4% in the feces respectively.  Most of the radioactivity was excreted as carbon dioxide; after 24 hours, 91.6% and 83.4% of orally and intraperitoneally administered DL-Malic Acid, respectively, and 88.0% and 86.6% of orally and intraperitoneally administered L-Malic Acid, respectively, was found in expired air.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [Malic acid has been consumed in apples and other fruits and vegetablesfor millenia, and malic acid is part of the body's inherent energy metabolism, thus the metabolites can not be considered toxic.

	8. Endocrine disruption. [No indications of an endocrine effect have been seen in the developmental of reproductive studies, nor the chronic exposure studies.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. A healthy diet in fruits and vegetables will provide a natural intake of malic acid.  The average content of L-Malic acid in apple juice is said to be between 0.3 and 0.6 g/100g.  Watermelon also contains a high amount of malic acid, at about 105 mg/g, Other fruit sources of malic acid include bananas, apricots, blackberries, cherries, lychees, peaches, pears and nectarines.  It is found in vegetables such as carrots and broccoli.

	i. Food.   Malic acid is permitted by FDA when used as a flavor enhancer, flavoring agent and adjuvant as defined 21CFR, Malic acid is used in food, except baby food, at levels not to exceed good manufacturing practice in accordance with § 184.1(b)(1). Current good manufacturing practice results in a maximum level, as served, of 3.4 percent for nonalcoholic beverages; 3.0 percent for chewing gum; 0.8 percent for gelatins, puddings, and fillings; 6.9 percent for hard candy; 2.6 percent for jams and jellies; 3.5 percent for processed fruits and fruit juices; 3.0 percent for soft candy; and 0.7 percent for all other food categories

	ii. Drinking water. [Malic acid when used as an inert in crop production should not make its way into drinking water due to its rapid biodegradation, but due to its lack of toxicological end points of concern, risk should be minimal.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Malic acid should not present non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[No cumulative negative effects are expected from the use of Malic Acid as an inert on crops due to its biodegrability and the metabolism of malic acid by plants and microbes.  Thus this use is not expected to contribute significantly to the malic acid intake of the populace. ]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Based on the lack of threshold effects, and that there are no  toxicological endpoints of concern, conducting a qualitative assessment of malic acid there is not a concern. for the U.S. population, including infants and children]

	2. Infants and children. [Based on the lack of threshold effects, and that there are no  toxicological endpoints of concern, conducting a qualitative assessment of malic acid there is not a concern. for the U.S. population, including infants and children]

F. International Tolerances

	[No Codex or International tolerances are available, but Malic acid is permitted added to foods and feeds internationally.]


[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61046-61047]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-94]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
to Intervene, Protests, and Comments

October 11, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No: 12727-000.
    c. Date filed: August 17, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Lincoln County, Oregon.
    e. Name of Project: Lincoln County Wave Energy Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in the Pacific Ocean in
Lincoln County, Oregon.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Wayne Belmont, Lincoln County, Oregon,
225 W, Olive Street, Room 110, Newport, OR 97365, phone: (541)-265-
4108.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of project: Oregon's offshore conditions present the
most optimal wave environment for extracting potential useful energy
according to the Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI). The wave
energy project would be bounded on the north and south by a 3-mile-long
line, on the east by the shoreline defined by the border of Lincoln
County, and on the west by a parallel line 3 miles offshore. Within
this area Lincoln County together with the Central Lincoln People's
Utility District (CLPUD), has identified at least nine potential
interconnections between the existing CLPUD near shore substations on
the power distribution grid and possible ``wave energy park'' locations
off the coast of Lincoln County. A Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) substation in Toledo, Oregon can distribute power beyond the
county on the electrical grid. Lincoln County's project will comply
with all interconnection requirements as specified by CLPUD and BPA. In
addition, there are potentially other connections including utilizing
an existing outfall for a major power user and possible
interconnections with Pacific Power in the northern portion of Lincoln
County.
    Such wave parks have the potential of generating up to 20 megawatts
(MW) of power or more. Multiple sites would be beneficial to the
immediate area and to the Pacific Northwest in supplementing the
region's hydropower capacity and in providing generation to the west of
the Cascade Mountain Range, thereby easing congestion on the east-west
transmission grid in region. While recognizing that wave energy will be
an intermittent energy source, and mindful of integration needs, waves
are far less intermittent than wind energy and are predictable many
hours ahead of their occurrence.
    Lincoln County will examine all the available wave power
technologies for each location within the project boundary. Lincoln
County will work closely with Oregon State University as a leader in
wave power development. All the alternative Wave Energy Conversion
(WEC) devices capable of generating commercially viable energy will be
explored.
    Lincoln County will seek investment of available economic
development dollars to locate businesses to both support wave parks off
our county shores and to create and test new technologies. The Port of
Newport has two deep-draft terminals for support vessels servicing the
wave power parks. Adequate industrial lands adjacent to those
terminals, with full infrastructure improvements including water,
sewer, and highways, are available to develop local wave park
technology, manufacturing, maintenance and repair businesses. Oregon
State University, which has launched an initiative to create the U.S.
Ocean Wave Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Center,
maintains the Hatfield Marine Science Center on Yaquina Bay in Newport,
which could become a primary center for creating

and field testing new wave power technologies.
    The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 87.5 to
790 gigawatt-hours.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'',''COMPETING APPLICATION'' OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17205 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47025-47028]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19018]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0460; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-222-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for all Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model 340B airplanes. The NPRM
proposed to require an inspection of the stick pusher rigging and an
adjustment to the correct setting if necessary. The NPRM was prompted
by a report that the elevator position quoted in an aircraft
maintenance manual is incorrect and a report that the trunnion at the
lower part of the control column was installed incorrectly. This action
revises the NPRM by proposing to require an inspection of the
installation of the trunnion and the stick pusher rigging, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to correct
the rigging of the elevator position of the stick pusher to reduce the
probability of a negative effect on the handling quality during stall,
which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Since
these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the
NPRM and at the request of a commenter, we are reopening the comment
period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed
changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 26,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden; telephone
+46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.
You may view this referenced 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0460; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, 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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0460;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-222-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulationsgov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to all Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model 340B airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33010).
The NPRM proposed to require actions intended to correct the rigging of
the elevator position of the stick pusher to reduce the probability of
a negative effect on the handling quality during stall, which could
result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (78 FR 33010, June 3, 2013) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 33010, June 3, 2013), it has been
reported that on some airplanes, during implementation of Saab Service
Bulletin 340-27-105, Revision 01, dated August 31, 2012, the trunnion
at the lower part of the control column was installed incorrectly,
which prevented proper inspection of the stick pusher rigging.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0253, dated October 18, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    The standard stick pusher maximum elevator position of a SAAB
340B, prior to delivery, is set at 7.5 degrees trailing edge down.
It was recently discovered that this value has been incorrectly
referenced in the SAAB 340B Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), which
quotes an elevator position of 4 degrees trailing edge down for all
aeroplanes, which is the correct value for SAAB SF340A aeroplanes
only.

    If a SAAB 340B aeroplane has been re-rigged in accordance with
current AMM procedure, there is a possibility that the deflection of
the elevator will be less than intended.
    This condition, if not corrected, will affect the stall
characteristics on the outer part of the envelope at maximum flap
setting and aft centre of gravity (CG) configuration, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, SAAB AB Aeronautics
issued Service Bulletin (SB) 340-27-105 to reduce the probability of
a negative effect on the handling quality during stall.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0256 [http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0460-0002] to require a one-time
inspection of the stick pusher rigging and, depending on findings,
adjustment to the correct setting.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it has been reported that on
some aeroplanes, during implementation of SB 340-27-105, the
trunnion at the lower part of the control column was incorrectly
installed. This prevents proper inspection of the stick pusher
rigging.
    Prompted by this finding, SAAB issued SB 340-27-115 with
instructions for all aeroplanes, regardless whether SB 340-27-105
has been accomplished or not.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2012-0256, which is superseded, but requires
the use of the improved and expanded instructions specified in SAAB
SB 340-27-115.

    The required actions include a detailed inspection of the
installation of the trunnion at the lower part of the control column
and the stick pusher rigging, and corrective actions if necessary.
Corrective actions include adjusting to the correct setting, and
repair. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2013-0460.

Relevant Service Information

    Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems has issued Service Bulletin 340-27-115,
dated July 19, 2013. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (78 FR
33010, June 3, 2013). The following presents the comment received on
the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Delay Issuance of AD

    Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems (Saab) requested that the issuance of the
final rule be delayed until new service information is introduced.
    As stated previously, Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-115, dated July
19, 2013, has been issued, which supersedes Saab Service Bulletin 340-
27-114, dated July 8, 2013; and Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-105,
Revision 01, dated August 31, 2012. We have revised paragraphs (g) and
(h) of this SNPRM to refer to Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-115, dated
July 19, 2013, as the appropriate source of service information for the
proposed requirements.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (78 FR
33010, June 3, 2013). As a result, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This SNPRM

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this SNPRM to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Saab AB,
Saab Aerosystems' EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA

directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH throughout this SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 109 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate that it would take about 12 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this SNPRM. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this SNPRM on
U.S. operators to be $112,270, or $1,030 per product.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been
detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy
of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be
directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591,
ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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 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. 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.

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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Docket No. FAA-2013-0460; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-222-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 26, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model 340B
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that the elevator position
quoted in an aircraft maintenance manual is incorrect and a report
that the trunnion at the lower part of the control column was
installed incorrectly. We are issuing this AD to correct the rigging
of the elevator position of the stick pusher to reduce the
probability of a negative effect on the handling quality during
stall, which could result in reduced controllability of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection of the installation of the trunnion at the lower
part of the control column and the stick pusher rigging, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service
Bulletin 340-27-115, dated July 19, 2013.

(h) Corrective Actions

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
an incorrect setting of the stick pusher maximum elevator position
is found, or if the trunnion at the lower part of the control column
is installed incorrectly, before further flight, accomplish all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-115, dated July 19,
2013; except where Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-115, dated July 19,
2013, specifies to contact SAAB for corrective action, repair before
further flight, using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems' EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Reporting Requirement

    After accomplishing the corrective action as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, record any incorrect rigging value that
was detected and send a report to: Saab AB, Business Area Support
and Services, Air Division, Technical Support email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fax: +46 (0) 13 18 48 74, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the corrective action was done on or after the effective
date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after
accomplishing the corrective action.
    (2) If the corrective action was done before the effective date
of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-
116, International Branch, 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: Shahram
Daneshmandi, 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) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Saab AB, Saab
Aerosystems' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0253, dated October 18,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0460-0002.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab
AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden; telephone
+46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.
You may view this referenced 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 1, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19018 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40529-40534]
[DOCID:fr12au09-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0684; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-149-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F Series
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F
series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive
inspections to find fatigue cracking in the floor panel attachment
fastener holes of the upper chord of certain upper deck floor beams in
Section 41 (i.e., body station 520 and forward), and repair if
necessary. The existing AD also provides optional modifications, which
extend the threshold for the initiation of certain repetitive
inspections. This proposed AD would add repetitive inspections to find
fatigue cracking in the floor panel attachment fastener holes of the
upper chord of certain other upper deck floor beams in Section 41 and
Section 42 (i.e., aft of body station 520); repetitive inspections to
find fatigue cracking in the permanent fastener holes of the upper
chord of certain upper deck floor beams in Section 41; and related
investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD would also
provide a new optional modification, which would terminate certain
repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from new reports of
cracking in the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams in Sections
41 and 42, and new analysis that shows the permanent fastener holes of
the upper chord of certain upper deck floor beams in Section 41 are
also susceptible to fatigue cracking. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct cracking in the upper chord of the upper deck floor
beams. Such cracking could extend and sever the floor beams, which
could result in rapid decompression and loss of controllability of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 28,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or 425-227-
1152.

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0684;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-149-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On March 31, 2006, we issued AD 2006-08-02, amendment 39-14556 (70
FR 18618, April 12, 2006), for certain Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F
series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to find
fatigue cracking in the floor panel attachment fastener holes of the
upper chord of certain upper deck floor beams in Section 41 (i.e., body
station 520 and forward), and repair if necessary. That AD also
provides optional modifications, which extend the threshold for
initiating certain repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from new
reports of cracks in the upper deck floor beams occurring at lower
total flight cycles. We issued that AD to find and fix cracking in the
upper chord of certain upper deck floor beams in Section 41. Such
cracking could extend and sever the floor beams, which could result in
rapid decompression and loss of controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2006-08-02, several operators of Boeing Model
747-400D series airplanes have reported cracking in the floor panel
attachment fastener holes of the upper chord of the upper deck floor
beams at body stations (BS) 460 and 480, and at the upper chord of the
floor beams in Section 42. The upper deck floor beams of Model 747-200C
and 747-200F series airplanes are of similar type design to Model 747-
400D series airplanes at those locations; therefore, we have concluded
that the unsafe condition also exists on Model 747-200C and 747-200F
series airplanes. In addition, Boeing has done analysis that shows
certain permanent fastener holes of the upper chord of certain upper
deck floor beams in Section 41 are also susceptible to fatigue
cracking.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    On December 26, 2007, we issued AD 2004-07-22 R1, amendment 39-
15326 (73 FR 1052, January 7, 2008), for all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. (A correction of
the final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 14,
2008 (73 FR 8589).) That AD requires that the FAA-approved maintenance
inspection program be revised to include inspections that will give no
less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural
significant item, and repair of cracked structure. We issued that AD to
ensure the continued structural integrity of the affected Model 747
series airplanes.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008 (``Revision 2 of the service
bulletin''). (We referred to

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision 1, dated March 10,
2005, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions required by AD 2006-08-02.) Revision 2 of the
service bulletin adds procedures for repetitive open-hole or surface
high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections to find fatigue cracking
in the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams at body stations (BS)
460 and 480, and from BS 540 to 780 (specified as Area 5 in the service
bulletin). Revision 2 of the service bulletin also adds procedures for
inspections to find fatigue cracking in the permanent fastener holes of
the upper chord of certain upper deck floor beams in Section 41.
    For airplanes on which any crack is found, Revision 2 of the
service bulletin specifies the corrective action of repairing the crack
before further flight. The repair depends on the location and extent of
cracking and can involve oversizing the fastener hole, installing a
repair strap or angle, or contacting Boeing for repair instructions.
    Revision 2 of the service bulletin also specifies post-repair
inspections and corrective actions that include:
     Repair of any cracking before further flight. For
airplanes on which a crack is found in a previously repaired or
modified area, the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for
repair data.
     An additional HFEC inspection for cracking of areas that
have been repaired or modified.
    Revision 2 of the service bulletin also describes optional
(alternative) modification procedures for airplanes on which no
cracking is found. Accomplishing these modifications extends the
threshold for initiating certain repetitive inspections.
    Revision 2 of the service bulletin defines the area for the new
floor panel attachment fastener hole inspections as ``Area 5.'' The
Area 5 inspections start at the latest of the following times:
     Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles.
     Within 1,000 flight cycles after the date of the service
bulletin.
     Within 2,000 flight cycles after the last surface HFEC
inspection or 6,000 flight cycles after the last open-hole HFEC
inspection done in accordance with Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document (SSID) SSI F-19B only (required by AD 2004-07-22 R1).
    Revision 2 of the service bulletin also specifies additional
inspection of permanent fastener holes in ``Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4.'' This
new inspection starts at the later of the following times:
     Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles.
     Within 1,000 flight cycles after the date of the service
bulletin.
    The repetitive inspection interval depends on the inspection method
and previous repairs/modifications, and ranges from 2,000 to 6,000
flight cycles for the surface/open-hole HFEC inspections.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
    Revision 2 of the service bulletin refers to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2696, dated October 16, 2008, for certain
modifications. The actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696
have been approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) with
certain requirements of AD 2006-08-02.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2006-08-02 and would retain the requirements of the
existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the
actions specified in the service information described previously
except as discussed under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the
Service Bulletin.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision 2, dated July
17, 2008, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how
to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require
repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Explanation of Changes Made to This AD

    We have added new paragraph (d) to this proposed AD specifying the
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America code identifying the subject
of the AD, and have re-identified the subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.
    We have simplified paragraph (h)(1) of this proposed AD (which
corresponds to paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2006-08-02) by referring to the
``Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)'' paragraph of this AD for
repair methods.
    We have revised paragraph (h)(1) of this proposed AD to allow any
crack in the subject area to be repaired according to data that conform
to the airplane's type certificate and that are approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to
make such findings.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 68 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
            Action               Work hours   Average labor  Cost per airplane    registered       Fleet cost
                                              rate per hour                        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (required by AD              29             $80  $2,320 per                     25  $58,000 per
 2006-08-02).                                                 inspection cycle.                  inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Inspection of Area 5 and                 78              80  $6,240 per                     25  $156,000 per
 permanent fastener hole in                                   inspection cycle.                  inspection
 Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 (new                                                                       cycle.
 proposed action).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    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); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-14556 (70 FR
18618, April 12, 2006) and adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2009-0684; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
149-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September
28, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-08-02.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from new reports of cracking in the upper
chord of the upper deck floor beams in Sections 41 and 42, and new
analysis that shows the permanent fastener holes of the upper chord
of certain upper deck floor beams in Section 41 are also susceptible
to fatigue cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking in the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams. Such
cracking could extend and sever the floor beams, which could result
in rapid decompression and loss of controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Requirements of AD 2006-08-02

Initial Compliance Time at a New Reduced Threshold

    (g) At the earliest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(3) of this AD, do the inspection required by paragraph
(h) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after March 15, 2004 (the effective date
of AD 2004-03-11, which was superseded by AD 2006-08-02), whichever
occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes with 17,000 or more total flight cycles as of
May 17, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-08-02): Before the
accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 90 days after
May 17, 2006, whichever occurs later.
    (3) For airplanes with fewer than 17,000 total flight cycles as
of May 17, 2006: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight
cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after May 17, 2006, whichever
occurs later.

Inspections at Reduced Intervals for Certain Floor Beams and Repair

    (h) Do the applicable inspection to find fatigue cracking in the
upper chord of the upper deck floor beams as specified in Part 1
(Open-Hole High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspection Method) or
Part 2 (Surface HFEC Inspection Method) of the Work Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001. Do
the inspections per the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
dated July 5, 2001, except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD.
Any combination of the applicable inspection methods specified in
Parts 1 and 2 may be used, provided that the corresponding
repetitive inspection interval is used.
    (1) If any crack is found, before further flight, repair per
Part 3 (Upper Chord Repair) of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001; except where
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001,
specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD or repair according
to data meeting the certification basis of the airplane approved by
a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) or by
an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization. For a repair method to
be approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter
must specifically reference this AD. Do the applicable inspection of
the repaired area per Part 1 of the Work Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001, at the
applicable time per Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001, and repeat the
applicable inspection at the applicable interval per Figure 1 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001.
    (2) If no crack is found, repeat the applicable inspection per
paragraph (h) of this AD at the applicable time specified in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(iii) of this AD. As an option to
the repetitive inspections, accomplishment of paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this AD, before further flight, extends the threshold for
the initiation of the repetitive inspections required by this
paragraph.
    (i) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using
an open-hole HFEC inspection method: Conduct the next inspection of
that area within 3,000 flight cycles of the last inspection.
    (ii) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using
a surface HFEC inspection method at stations 340 through 420
inclusive and station 500: Conduct the next inspection of that area
within 750 flight cycles of the last inspection.
    (iii) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted
using a surface HFEC inspection method at stations 440 and

520: Conduct the next inspection of that area at the earlier of the
times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(iii)(A) and (h)(2)(iii)(B) of
this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 flight
cycles.
    (A) Within 750 flight cycles since the last surface HFEC
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (B) Within 250 flight cycles after May 17, 2006.

Optional Repair/Modification

    (i) For areas on which the inspection required by paragraph (h)
of this AD is done per Part 1 of the Work Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001; and on which
no cracking is found: Accomplishment of the actions specified in
either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD extends the threshold
for the initiation of the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. For areas on which the inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD is done per Part 2 of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001; and on which
no cracking is found: Accomplishment of the actions specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD extends the threshold for the initiation
of the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Do the applicable repair per Part 3 of the Work Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001,
except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD. At the applicable
time specified in Table 1 of Part 3 of the Work Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5, 2001, do
the applicable inspection of the repaired area per Part 1 of the
Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
dated July 5, 2001. Repeat the inspection thereafter within the
applicable interval of 3,000 flight cycles per Figure 1 of the
service bulletin.
    (2) Do the modification of the attachment hole of the floor
panel per Figure 5 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
dated July 5, 2001, except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD.
Within 10,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the
modification, do the inspection of the modified area per Part 1 of
the Work Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection
thereafter within the applicable interval of 3,000 flight cycles per
Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, dated July 5,
2001.

Determining the Number of Flight Cycles for Compliance Time

    (j) For the purposes of calculating the compliance threshold and
repetitive intervals for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), or
(i) of this AD: As of May 17, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-
08-02), all flight cycles, including the number of flight cycles in
which cabin differential pressure is at 2.0 pounds per square inch
(psi) or less, must be counted when determining the number of flight
cycles that have occurred on the airplane.

New Requirements of This AD

Applicable Revisions of Service Bulletins

    (k) Use the information in Tables 1 and 2 of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this
AD, to determine the part of the applicable service bulletin to use
to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
    (1) On or after May 17, 2006, but before the effective date of
this AD, use only the service information listed in Table 1 or Table
2 of this AD.

Table 1--Service Information Given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
                53A2439, Revision 1, Dated March 10, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Do--                         In accordance with--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The actions required by         Parts 1 and 2 of the Work
 paragraph (h) of this AD.           Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 1, dated March 10, 2005;
                                     as applicable.
(2) The applicable inspection of    Parts 1 and 6 of the Work
 the repaired area required by       Instructions of Boeing Alert
 paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.        Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 1, dated March 10, 2005;
                                     as applicable; at the applicable
                                     time specified in Table 1 of Part 3
                                     of the Work Instructions of that
                                     service bulletin.
(3) The actions required by         Parts 1, 3, and 6 of the Work
 paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.        Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 1, dated March 10, 2005.
(4) The actions required by         Figure 5 and Part 1 of the Work
 paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.        Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 1, dated March 10, 2005;
                                     as applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) On or after the effective date of this AD, use only the
service information listed in Table 2 of this AD.

Table 2--Service Information Given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
                53A2439, Revision 2, Dated July 17, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Do--                         In accordance with--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The actions required by         Part 1 (open-hole or surface HFEC
 paragraph (h) and (l) of this AD.   inspection, as applicable) of the
                                     Work Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008.
(2) The applicable inspection of    Part 1 (open-hole HFEC inspection
 the repaired area required by       only) and Part 5 of the Work
 paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.        Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008; at
                                     the applicable time specified in
                                     Table 1 of Part 2 of the Work
                                     Instructions of that service
                                     bulletin.
(3) The applicable repair required  Part 2 (upper chord repair at floor
 by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.     panel attach holes) of the Work
                                     Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008.
(4) The actions required by         Part 1 (open-hole HFEC inspection
 paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.        only), Part 2, and Part 5 of the
                                     Work Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008.
(5) The actions required by         Figure 5 and Part 1 (open-hole HFEC
 paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.        inspection only) of the Work
                                     Instructions of Boeing Alert
                                     Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
                                     Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Inspections and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (l) For all airplanes, except as provided by paragraphs (k)(1)
and (k)(2) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in Paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439,
Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008, do the applicable open-hole or
surface HFEC inspections for fatigue cracking in the upper chord of
the upper deck floor beams in Area 5, and the inspection for fatigue
cracking in the permanent fastener holes of the upper chord of
certain upper deck floor beams in Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008. Do
all applicable related investigative

and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable
inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in
Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2439, Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008.
    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision 2,
dated July 17, 2008, specifies a compliance time relative to the
date of issuance of that service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision 2,
dated July 17, 2008, specifies contacting Boeing for repair data:
Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

Optional New Modification for Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4

    (m) For areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 as defined in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008: Doing the
modification and post-modification actions specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, dated October 16, 2008, terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
AD. Doing the modification and post-modification actions specified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, dated October 16,
2008, terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph
(l) of this AD, except at the upper deck floor beam at body station
(BS) 460 and 480 and the upper deck floor beams aft of BS 520.

No Reporting Requirement

    (n) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2439, Revision
1, dated March 10, 2005; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2439, Revision 2, dated July 17, 2008; specify to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Or, e-mail
information to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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 principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-08-02,
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (4) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 3, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-19262 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P