[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46532-46536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18511]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0616; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-353-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 767 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 revise the maintenance program to incorporate a revision
to the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance planning
data (MPD) document, and to remove airplanes from the applicability. 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 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 September
16, 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 206-766-5280; 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
98057-3352; 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-2008-0616;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-353-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
[[Page 46533]]
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 apply to all The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. That NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32252). That
NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests of the engine
fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if
necessary, according to a method approved by the FAA.
Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008) Was Issued
Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, 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. It is standard practice for operators to revise
maintenance tasks to incorporate actions into their individual
maintenance manuals as part of the maintenance program. Based on these
comments, and a review of the previous NPRM, we determined a revision
to the procedures was necessary. In conjunction with Boeing we
developed an airworthiness limitation for the engine fuel suction feed
system to address this issue.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision
October 2012 and Revision January 2013, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document. Among other things, Section 9 describes
AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of
Section E., AWLS--Fuel Systems, which provides procedures for
performing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed
of the fuel system.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments
received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Request To Withdraw the Previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008)
ABX Air asked that we withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June
6, 2008). ABX stated that there have been no incidents recorded in the
NTSB or FAA databases for a Model 767 flameout due to the loss of fuel
system suction feed capability. ABX added that it does not believe the
subject unsafe condition is a critical safety concern.
We do not agree with the request to withdraw the previous NPRM (73
FR 32252, June 6, 2008), because, together with the manufacturer, we
have evaluated this issue and determined it to be an important safety
concern. Although the fuel system on Model 767 airplanes differs from
the Model 737 with respect to the engine fuel feed system design,
service data of transport category airplanes indicates that multi-
engine flameouts have generally resulted from a common cause, such as
fuel mismanagement, crew action that inadvertently shut off the fuel
supply to the engines, exposure to common environmental conditions, or
engine deterioration on all engines of the same type. Successful in-
flight restart of the engines is dependent on adequate fuel being
supplied to the engines, solely through engine fuel suction feed.
Deterioration of the fuel plumbing system can lead to line (vacuum)
losses, reducing the engine fuel suction feed capability; therefore,
directed maintenance is necessary to ensure this system is functioning
correctly in order to maintain continued safe flight of the airplane.
We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Incorporate CMR Task Into the Maintenance Program Instead of
Issuing an NPRM
ABX, Japan Airlines International (JAL), and Qantas Airways Ltd.
asked that a CMR task be developed for incorporation into the
maintenance program instead of issuing an NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6,
2008). The commenters stated that the maintenance program is already in
use by operators and the procedures are understood and followed. Qantas
added that the task associated with this action will generate an
administrative burden for operators, with no benefit.
We do not agree with the requests to develop a CMR task. CMRs are
developed by the Certification Maintenance Coordination Committee
(CMCC) during the type certification process. The CMCC is made up of
manufacturer representatives (typically maintenance, design, and safety
engineering personnel), operator representatives designated by the
Industry Steering Committee chairperson, FAA Aircraft Certification
Office specialists, and the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) chairperson.
CMRs developed during this process become a part of the certification
basis of the airplane upon issuance of the type certificate. We do not
have a process for convening the CMCC outside of the type certification
process; based on this, the CMR is not an option for replacing this AD.
Therefore, if the airworthiness limitation items (ALIs) were not in the
maintenance program at the time of initial certification, an AD is
required to make the ALI task a required action. We have not changed
the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Requests To Allow the Use of Later Revisions of the Maintenance
Documents
Air New Zealand (ANZ), ABX, Continental Airlines (CAL), and Boeing
asked that we allow using later revisions of the referenced maintenance
documents, because those documents could be revised over time and would
require frequent requests for alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs).
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.
We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Clarify Reason for the Unsafe Condition
Boeing asked that we clarify the reason for the unsafe condition
identified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008). Boeing
asked that the AD include the results from a report of in-service
occurrences of loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one
engine, due to two in-service engine flameout events on a Model 737-400
airplane while operating on suction feed with undetected air leak
failures. Boeing stated that there are no known reports of any engine
flameout related to events on Model 767 airplanes. Boeing acknowledged
that undetected air leaks could exist and that this maintenance
procedure is a proactive measure to ensure engine flameout will not
occur during suction feed operation.
We agree to clarify the unsafe condition. We have revised the
Summary section and paragraph (e) of this supplemental NPRM
accordingly.
[[Page 46534]]
Requests for Changes To Certain Maintenance Document References
JAL, ANZ, and Boeing asked that we remove the airplane maintenance
manual (AMM) reference to Section 28-22-00 specified in paragraph (f)
of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008). The commenters stated
that the AMM is covered in Boeing 767 Task Card 28-020-02, and noted
that having fewer references included lessens the chance of errors.
We acknowledge and agree with the commenters concerns regarding the
maintenance documents referenced in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32253,
June 6, 2008). However, these maintenance documents are not FAA-
approved and we do not have the publication controls associated with
AD-related service documents. We do not agree with the requested
changes because we have decided to mandate an FAA-approved document
which should eliminate these concerns. We changed paragraph (f) of the
previous NPRM (paragraph (g) in this supplemental NPRM) to require
revising the maintenance program to incorporate new procedures into the
maintenance documents.
Requests To Extend Repetitive Test Intervals
CAL and Air Canada asked that we extend the repetitive operational
test interval specified in paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR
32252, June 6, 2008).
CAL stated that a re-evaluation of the proposed repetitive interval
limit after doing the initial inspection should be done, since CAL's
service history has revealed no reported engine flameout events or
related operational discrepancies. CAL asked that the repetitive
interval be extended to a normal maintenance 2C-check or within 12,000
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
Air Canada asked that the repetitive interval be extended to a
calendar time of 24 months. Air Canada does not understand the logic
behind a repetitive frequency of 7,500 flight hours.
We do not agree with the requests that the repetitive intervals be
extended. 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 32252, 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 an
AMOC to request 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 Clarify That Engine Fuel Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in
Lieu of the Operational Test
JAL asked that we clarify that the engine fuel suction feed test
procedure in the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document is
an option for performing the operational test in the previous NPRM (73
FR 32252, June 6, 2008). JAL asked that we consider adding the pressure
leak check of the fuel lines and fittings procedure as an alternative
procedure to performing the operational test specified in Section 28-
22-00 of the Boeing 767 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).
We agree to provide clarification. The pressure leak check is not
equivalent to the operational test (Task 28-22-00-710-802) since
certain fuel line seal details may function normally under positive
pressure, but fail to hold in-line vacuum when under fuel suction feed.
Additionally, a fuel suction feed test would be required after
reconnecting the fuel line to the manifold to verify final system
integrity. Therefore, we have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Request To Include Warning Information
CAL suggested that the Boeing service manuals include a critical
design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) warning identification
statement to alert maintenance personnel of the importance of
regulatory compliance, as well as the configuration control
requirement. CAL did not include any justification for this request.
We agree that a CDCCL warning statement would serve as direct
communication to maintenance personnel that there is an AD associated
with certain maintenance actions. New service information has been
added to this supplemental NPRM since issuance of the previous NPRM (73
FR 32252, June 6, 2008), which should eliminate the commenter's
concern. The airplane maintenance manual will be a ``referred to''
document within the AWL task, which gives operators flexibility in
developing maintenance programs based on equivalent procedures. We have
made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Include Corrective Action
CAL asked that the related testing language specified in paragraph
(f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008) be changed. CAL
stated that the language should specify correcting discrepancies before
further flight if the engine fails the operational test. CAL added that
the corrective actions should be done in accordance with the procedures
in the ``Right (Left) Engine Fails the Suction Feed Test'' procedure in
the Boeing 767 Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) 28-22-00/101.
We acknowledge and agree with the commenters concern. However, as
stated previously, we are issuing this supplemental NPRM to revise the
maintenance program to incorporate a revision to the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of the MPD document to include the ``Engine Fuel
Suction Feed Operational Test'' procedure. Therefore, the language
identified by the commenter has been removed from this supplemental
NPRM. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
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 32252, 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 revises the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June
6, 2008) by proposing to remove the actions in paragraph (f) of the
previous NPRM and replace with a revision to the maintenance program to
incorporate procedures for the Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational
Test Airworthiness Limitations Section of the MPD document, and to
remove airplanes from the applicability.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and/or CDCCLs.
Compliance with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered,
or repaired in the areas addressed by this
[[Page 46535]]
AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in
the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the
operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
according to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the
continued operational safety of the airplane.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 406 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise airworthiness limitations.... 1 work-hour x $85 per $0 $85 $34,510
hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0616; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-353-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by September 16, 2013.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category,
that have received a certificate of airworthiness or foreign export
before November 2, 2012.
Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: November 2, 2012, is the
original publication date of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-
9, Revision October 2012, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning
Data (MPD) Document, or Revision January 2013 of the Boeing 767
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document; including Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLS)--Fuel Systems of Airworthiness Limitation (AWL)
No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD results from 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 failure of the engine fuel
suction feed capability of the fuel system, which 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) Maintenance Program Revision
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance program to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel
Suction Feed Operational Test, of Section E., AWLS--Fuel Systems of
Section 9, AWLs and CMRs, D622T001-9, Revision October 2012 or
Revision January 2013, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document.
(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., tests), intervals, or CDCCLs
may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(i) 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
[[Page 46536]]
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(j) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3352; 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 206-766-5280; 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 July 21, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-18511 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P