[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75009-75011]
[DOCID:fr10de08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0646; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-359-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 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 certain Boeing Model 727 airplanes. The original NPRM would
have required performing an operational test of the engine fuel suction
feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. The
original NPRM resulted from a report of in-service occurrences of loss
of fuel system suction feed capability, followed by total loss of
pressure of the fuel feed system. This action revises the original NPRM
by reducing the compliance time for low-utilization airplanes and
including corrective actions that were inadvertently omitted from
certain sections. The corrective actions are inspecting and repairing
or replacing any leaking Gamah fittings with new fittings, and
inspecting and repairing any major welded tube assemblies that are
leaking. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct
failure of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system,
which could result in multi-engine flameout, inability to restart the
engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by January 5,
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: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; 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-2008-0646;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-359-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

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 727 airplanes. That
original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2008
(73 FR 35093). That original NPRM proposed to require performing an
operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and other related testing if necessary.

Actions Since Original NPRM was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have learned that corrective
actions were inadvertently omitted from the Summary section and
paragraph (f) of the original NPRM. The corrective actions were
identified in the relevant service information section of the original
NPRM and include inspecting and repairing or replacing any leaking
Gamah fittings with new fittings, and inspecting and repairing any
major welded tube assemblies that are leaking.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received from a single commenter.

Request To Change Test Interval for Low-Utilization Airplanes

    Boeing asks that we add a maximum time interval of 3 years to the
current 7,000-flight-hour repetitive test interval specified in
paragraph (f) of the original NPRM. Boeing states that low-utilization
airplanes may not meet the 7,000-flight-hour threshold for several
years.
    We agree to change the compliance time for repetitive tests. We
have determined that the compliance time for the initial test should
also be changed based on the data received from the manufacturer. The
data provided by the manufacturer also justify a change to the
repetitive test interval currently specified in the original NPRM to
acknowledge that elapsed calendar time, as well as operational time,
can affect suction feed capability. We have determined that changing
the intervals in terms of calendar and operational time, as recommended
by the manufacturer, will ensure an adequate level of safety for the
affected fleet. We have changed the compliance time for the initial
operational test specified in paragraph (f) of this supplemental NPRM
as requested.

Request To Clarify Reason for the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing asks that we clarify the description of in-service
occurrences of loss of fuel system suction feed capability specified in
the original NPRM, which states that the proposed AD results from
reports of two in-service engine flameout events operating on suction
feed with undetected air leak failures. Boeing notes that there are no
known reports of any engine flameout-related events in the Model 727
airplane fleet. Boeing recognizes that undetected air leaks could
exist, and the maintenance procedure is a proactive measure to ensure
engine flameout will not occur due to air leaks while on suction feed
operation. Boeing is unclear as to the incidents in question and only
through further investigation discovered that the engine suction feed
incidents did not occur within the Model 727 airplane fleet. Boeing
asks that we clarify the Summary, Discussion, and Unsafe Condition
sections, and ``FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed
AD.''
    We agree that the Summary and Discussion sections and ``FAA's
Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD'' could be clarified
in the supplemental NPRM as Boeing requests. The inaccurate language
which was contained in the original NPRM is not restated in the
supplemental NPRM. Therefore, no change to the supplemental NPRM is
necessary in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Requirement for Additional Testing

    Boeing asks that we clarify the requirement for additional testing
of the engine fuel feed manifold specified in the Summary section.
Boeing states that this requirement would be better described as
performing corrective action in case the engine suction feed
operational test is not successful. Boeing asks that we change the
second sentence in the Summary section as follows: ``This proposed AD
would require performing an operational test of the engine fuel suction
feed of the fuel system. If necessary, corrective actions may be
required, before further flight.''
    We agree with the request to clarify the requirement for additional
testing of the engine fuel feed manifold. As specified under ``Actions
Since Original NPRM was Issued,'' we have added the corrective action
language that was not included in the original NPRM to this
supplemental NPRM.

Request To Allow Later Revisions of the Referenced Service Bulletin

    Boeing asks that we revise the original NPRM to allow further
revisions to the Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-80, dated June 21, 1985
(referenced in the original NPRM as the source of service information
for accomplishing the specified actions). Boeing states that the
service bulletin may be revised over time which would require frequent
requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC).
    We do not agree with the request. This supplemental NPRM must be
consistent with FAA policy and Office of the Federal Register
regulations, which do not allow references to the use of ``later
revisions'' of the applicable service information in ADs. Therefore, no
change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM 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 original NPRM.
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 supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 709 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 1 work-hour per
product, per test, to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $56,720, or $80 per
product, per test.

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), 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.

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 adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0646; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
359-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 5, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-
100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of in-service occurrences of
loss of fuel system suction feed capability, followed by total loss
of pressure of the fuel feed system. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct failure of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, which could result in multi-engine flameout, inability
to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Operational Test/Other Specified Actions

    (f) Within 7,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform an operational test
of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and perform all
other related testing and corrective actions, as applicable, before
further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-80, dated June 21, 1985. Repeat
the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000
flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first.

Operator's Equivalent Procedure

    (g) If any discrepancy is found, and Boeing Service Bulletin
727-28-80, dated June 21, 1985, specifies that certain actions
(i.e., a vacuum test of the fuel feed system) may be accomplished
using an operator's ``equivalent procedure'' (with substitute test
equipment): The actions must be accomplished in accordance with
Figure 4 of the service bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-29256 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P