
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6254-6257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: 
suzanne.lucier@faa.gov.

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: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
    (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: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov.
    (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


