[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6254-6257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01954]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0614; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-351-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company 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 The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests
of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related
testing if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports of two in-
service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost
pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system
suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the
engine. This action revises that NPRM by proposing to require
repetitive operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. We
are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct loss of the
engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which, in the
event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual
engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent
forced landing of the airplane. Since these actions impose an
additional burden over that proposed in the previous NPRM, 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 supplemental NPRM by March 18,
2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
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 proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; 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 425-227-1221.
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 (phone: 800-647-5527) 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, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
[email protected].
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-2008-0614;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-351-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 an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would
[[Page 6255]]
apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008
(73 FR 32258). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational
tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other
related testing if necessary. That NPRM proposed that those actions be
done according to a method approved by the FAA.
Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008) Was Issued
Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008), we
have received comments from operators indicating a high level of
difficulty performing the actions in the previous NPRM during
maintenance operations.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1307, dated May
14, 2012. This service information describes procedures for repetitive
operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include
isolating the cause of any leakage and repairing the leak.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments
received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Requests To Revise Compliance Time
Boeing asked that we revise the compliance time in paragraph (f) of
the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008) (referred to as paragraph
(g) in this supplemental NPRM) to include a calendar time of 3 years
for the low-utilization airplanes. Boeing stated that low-utilization
airplanes may not meet the 7,500-flight-hour threshold for several
years.
We do not agree with the 3-year calendar time. As specified
previously, Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1307, dated
May 14, 2012, which specifies a compliance time of 24 months.
Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM to
include doing the initial test within 7,500 flight hours or 24 months,
whichever occurs first. We have also included a repetitive interval of
7,500 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first.
Continental Airlines (CAL), British Airways (BA), KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines, and Lufthansa Basis (LBA) asked that we extend the repetitive
operational test interval required by paragraph (f) of the previous
NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008). CAL stated that a re-evaluation of
the proposed repetitive interval limit after doing the initial
inspection should be done, since its service history has revealed no
reported engine flameout events or related operational discrepancies.
CAL asked that the repetitive interval be extended to repeating the
inspection during a normal maintenance 2C-check or within 8,000 flight
cycles, whichever occurs first. LBA stated that the repetitive interval
of 7,500 flight hours does not match maintenance planning data (MPD) or
maintenance review board (MRB) intervals of every 1 C-check and 4,000
flight hours, and asked for clarification and revision. KLM stated that
if an airplane does not pass the operational test, a tank entry is
required, which has an impact on the downtime requirements for C-
checks. KLM asked that the initial compliance time be extended from
within 7,500 flight hours to within 8,000 flight hours or at the next 2
C-check, with the same interval for the repetitive tests. BA stated
that the test is already covered in the MPD task with a compliance time
of 4,000 flight hours.
We do not agree with the requests to revise the compliance time by
extending the flight-hour compliance time or adding maintenance check
intervals. The compliance time in the MPD is not required by this
supplemental NPRM because we have determined that the 7,500-flight-hour
or 24-month interval, whichever occurs first, addresses the identified
unsafe condition. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the
actions specified in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph
(f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008)), we considered
the safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for the timely
accomplishment of the specified actions. We have determined that the
proposed compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and
allow the actions to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for
most affected operators.
However, affected operators may request approval of an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) for an extension of the repetitive
operational test interval under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this
supplemental NPRM by submitting data substantiating that the change
would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Include Corrective Action
Boeing asked that the related testing language specified in the
``Summary,'' ``FAA's Conclusions,'' and ``FAA's Determination and
Requirements of this Proposed AD'' sections of the previous NPRM (73 FR
32258, June 6, 2008) be changed. Boeing stated that it should specify
correcting discrepancies before further flight if the engine fails the
operational test.
We agree with the request. We have revised the language describing
the proposed actions as appropriate throughout this supplemental NPRM.
We also have changed paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM to specify
doing all applicable corrective actions before further flight in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1307, dated May
14, 2012.
Request To Clarify if Engine Fuel Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu
of the Operational Test
KLM asked that we clarify if the fuel feed manifold air pressure
leak check procedure specified in airplane maintenance manual (AMM) 28-
22-15 is an alternative to performing the operational test. KLM added
that this alternative test is allowed by AMM 28-22-00.
We agree to provide clarification. The manifold leak test (Task 28-
22-00-710-801) is not equivalent to the operational test (Task 28-22-
00-710-802) for the purposes of this proposed action. The positive
internal fuel line pressure applied during the manifold test does not
simulate the same conditions encountered during fuel suction feed
(i.e., vacuum), and might mask a failure. Therefore, we have not
changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Requests To Add AMM Task Card and MPD Tasks or Remove Existing
Reference
BA, LBA, and Air Nippon (ANK) asked that AMM MSG3 Task Card be
added to paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008)
as a method of compliance for performing the operational test. BA also
asked that the NPRM reference the MPD tasks associated with the check.
The commenters stated that the task card is equivalent to AMM Task Card
B28-22-00-2B, which is specified in paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM.
Boeing asked that the NPRM only include AMM Task Card B28-22-00-2B in
paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM, and remove reference to AMM 28-22-
00. Boeing stated that the fewer references, the less chance of errors.
We do not agree to add a reference to the task cards and MPD tasks,
or to
[[Page 6256]]
remove the reference to AMM 28-22-00. However, we have revised
paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM to require accomplishing
operational tests and applicable corrective actions in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1307, dated May 14, 2012.
Requests To Allow the Use of Later Revisions of the Maintenance
Documents
Boeing asked that we allow using later revisions of the Boeing 737-
300/400/500 Task Card B28-22-00-2B, dated July 12, 2006, because the
task card date could be revised over time and would require frequent
requests for AMOCs. BA asked that we allow for using the AMM and Boeing
task cards having Revision July 12, 2006 or later.
We do not agree with the request. Allowing later revisions of
service documents in an AD is not allowed by the Office of the Federal
Register regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference.
Affected operators may, however, request approval to use a later
revision of referenced service information as an AMOC in accordance
with paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Include Warning Information
CAL suggested that the Boeing service manuals include a warning
identification statement to alert maintenance personnel of the
importance of regulatory compliance. CAL did not include any
justification for this request.
We agree that a warning statement would serve as direct
communication to maintenance personnel that there is an AD associated
with certain maintenance actions, but do not find this additional
measure necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition. We have
made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Change to Previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008)
The Costs of Compliance section in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258,
June 6, 2008) has been changed to correct the number of U.S.-registered
airplanes affected. The data source used in 2007, which specified a
total of 669 airplanes of U.S. registry, did not provide an accurate
count; therefore, we have used the current information available to
determine that 827 airplanes of U.S. registry are affected by the
actions in this supplemental NPRM.
We have clarified the unsafe condition identified in the previous
NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008) by specifying that the previous NPRM
results from two in-service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of
total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by
loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-
flight shutdown of the engine.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008). 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.
Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM
This supplemental NPRM would revise the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258,
June 6, 2008) by proposing to require repetitive operational tests of
the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions
if necessary.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 827 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test.................. Up to 12 work-hours x $85 Up to $2,040........ Up to $1,687,080.
per hour = $1,020 per
engine, per test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
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:
[[Page 6257]]
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0614; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-351-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by March 18, 2013.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on
Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the
fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed
capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel
suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of
total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced
landing of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions
Within 7,500 flight hours or 24 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 do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1307, dated May
14, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further
flight. Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 7,500 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first.
Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternative procedures or repetitive test intervals are allowed.
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(i) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-
917-6590; email: [email protected].
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; 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 425-227-1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington on January 18, 2013.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-01954 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P