This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

1979 

Vol. 76, No. 8 

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0295; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–298–AD; Amendment 

39–16576; AD 2011–02–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 757 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Model 

757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 

series airplanes. This AD requires an 

inspection of the two spring arms in the 

spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel 

well to determine if the spring arms are 

made of aluminum or composite 

material, and repetitive related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. This AD also provides 

options for terminating the repetitive 

actions. This AD results from reports of 

cracked and broken aluminum springs. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracked or broken springs. A 

cracked or broken spring could separate 

from the airplane and result in potential 

hazard to persons or property on the 

ground, or ingestion into the engine 

with engine damage and potential 

shutdown, or damage to the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

February 16, 2011. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of February 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: 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 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Fox, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6425; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an 

AD that would apply to all Model 757– 

200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 series 

airplanes. That supplemental NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on October 19, 2009 (74 FR 53430). The 

original NPRM proposed to require an 

inspection of the two spring arms in the 

spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel 

well to determine if the spring arms are 

made of aluminum or composite 

material, and repetitive related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. The original NPRM also 

would have provided for optional 

terminating actions for the repetitive 

inspections. The supplemental NPRM 

proposed to require revising the original 

NPRM to include a parts installation 

paragraph and to provide options for 

terminating the repetitive actions. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received on 

the supplemental NPRM. Continental 

Airlines had no additional comments 

beyond what was previously submitted 

in the supplemental NPRM. 

Request To Revise Delegation of 

Authority 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) 

holder to Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) in paragraph (l)(3) of the 

supplemental NPRM. 

We agree with Boeing’s request to 

revise the delegation of authority. 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes has 

received an ODA, which replaces the 

previous designation as a DOA holder. 

We have revised paragraph (m)(3) of this 

AD (paragraph (l)(3) of the supplemental 

NPRM) to add delegation of authority to 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA to 

approve an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) for any repair 

required by this AD. 

Request To Revise the AD To Permit the 

Accomplishment of Paragraph (k) of 

this AD in a Shop Environment 

American Airlines (AAL) requested 

that the supplemental NPRM permit the 

accomplishment of paragraph (j) of the 

supplemental NPRM, ‘‘Parts 

Installation,’’ in a shop environment. 

AAL stated that paragraph (j) of the 

supplemental NPRM (paragraph (k) of 

this AD) presents several issues that 

need resolution. AAL stated that the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, are applicable to an on-wing 

inspection with no provisions for shop 

instructions. 

AAL also stated that paragraph 

3.B.5.a. of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 

1, dated October 16, 2008, contains 

multiple areas of concern. AAL stated 

that the service bulletin instructs 

operators to ‘‘Replace the left or right (as 

applicable) aluminum spring with a 

new aluminum spring in accordance 

with FIGURE 4 * * *.’’ However, AAL 

stated that this figure provides 

instructions to replace the spring onwing. AAL stated that it has processes 

in place by which the spring assembly 

(141N0091–22) is reworked (to include 

any necessary spring replacement) in 

accordance with Boeing drawing data in 

a shop environment. AAL stated that the 

supplemental NPRM contains no 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

1980 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

provisions for accomplishing this spring 

replacement in a shop environment. 

AAL requested that the final rule 

contain appropriate language to allow 

operators to accomplish the intent of 

Figure 4 of the service bulletin in a shop 

environment. 

We disagree with AAL’s request to 

include language specifying that the 

accomplishment of paragraph (k) of this 

AD is permitted in a shop environment. 

Although the final installation of the 

spin brakes is required by this AD and 

installation may be accomplished in a 

shop environment, AD compliance is 

established for airplanes and not parts. 

AAL may perform shop maintenance 

provided that the AD is complied with 

and the airplane meets the requirements 

of this AD. 

In addition, the service bulletin does 

not provide for inspections and 

replacement of parts in a shop 

environment where the installation of 

the spin brake assemblies could be 

accomplished off the airplane. The 

commenter does not provide sufficient 

suggestions to demonstrate and ensure 

that the corrected assemblies could be 

installed such that each affected 

airplane could demonstrate compliance. 

An operator may request approval of an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD 

for brake assemblies that were reworked off the airplane. No changes to 

the AD have been made in this regard. 

Request To Allow Replacement of the 

Existing Spin Brake Assembly With a 

Serviceable Spin Brake Assembly 

AAL stated that there is an omission 

from paragraph 3.B.5.a. of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008. AAL stated that the paragraph 

allows replacement of the existing spin 

brake assembly with a new spin brake 

assembly in accordance with the Boeing 

757 Airplane Maintenance Manual, but 

no provisions are made for installing a 

serviceable (used) spin brake. 

From these comments we infer that 

AAL is requesting that we revise the 

final rule to also allow replacement of 

an existing spin brake assembly with a 

serviceable assembly. We agree with 

AAL that a serviceable spin brake 

assembly is acceptable for compliance. 

We have added paragraph (j) of this AD 

to allow replacement with a serviceable 

spin brake assembly if the assembly is 

inspected and all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions have 

been applied in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this 

AD. 

Request To Use Part Substitutions 

AAL requested that we revise the 

supplemental NPRM to allow use of 

approved part substitutions for 

accomplishing the proposed actions. 

AAL stated that where common 

hardware such as washers, nuts, bolts, 

shims, sealants, and adhesives are 

specified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 

1, dated October 16, 2008, operators 

with accepted processes may use 

approved substitutes determined to be 

equivalent in accordance with the 

operator parts management systems. 

AAL stated that this will eliminate a 

duplication of effort for all parties, 

including the operators, Boeing, and the 

engineering branch of the Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office by avoiding 

unnecessary requests for AMOCs to 

allow equivalent hardware. 

AAL stated that many operators, 

including AAL, have an FAA-accepted 

process by which they combine certain 

parts that have been determined to be 

equivalent and are placed in inventory 

under a single company part number. 

AAL stated that this process is 

longstanding and is done to facilitate an 

efficient inventory system. AAL also 

stated that the parts disposition 

authority (PDA) for American Airlines is 

contained in the engineering procedures 

manual (EPM), which is incorporated 

into the general manual (GM). AAL 

stated that the GM is required by the 

FAA-approved operations specification. 

AAL stated that Section 15–20 of the 

EPM defines the process by which part 

equivalency can be established. The 

basis for equivalency is found in source 

documents provided by the original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM), such as 

the Boeing Spec-2000, Boeing Document 

D–590, Boeing qualified product list 

(QPL), the applicable aircraft illustrated 

parts catalog (IPC), or industry standard 

specifications such as military 

specification (MS), National Aerospace 

Standards (NAS), Army Navy (AN), 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 

etc., or other qualified data provided by 

the OEM. AAL also stated that in any 

case where equivalency is clearly 

unambiguous, AAL engineering will use 

these and other FAA-approved sources 

such as OEM drawings, specifications, 

OEM correspondence, or parts 

manufacturer approval (PMA) 

authorizations to determine the 

interchangeability of parts. AAL stated 

that while some of the above documents 

have been included as notes in 

applicable service bulletins in order to 

provide equivalency, it has found a 

number of cases where, during 

accomplishment of an AD, there was not 

sufficient information provided to make 

that assessment. 

We disagree with AAL’s request to 

use part substitutions for accomplishing 

the actions in this AD. The requested 

list of substitute parts and materials is 

extensive and uncontrolled—and, in 

many cases, not FAA approved. An 

operator may request approval of an 

AMOC in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD. 

We have not changed this AD regarding 

this issue. 

Request To Revise the Phrase 

‘‘Investigative and Corrective Actions’’ 

Northwest Airlines (NWA) requested 

that we revise the phrase ‘‘investigative 

and corrective actions’’ in the 

supplemental NPRM. NWA stated that 

the use of the phrase ‘‘investigative and 

corrective actions’’ in paragraphs (g) and 

(j) of the supplemental NPRM may lead 

to confusion as to what action(s) in the 

service instructions are required. NWA 

proposed that the phrase be changed to 

‘‘compliance action’’ in paragraph (g) of 

the supplemental NPRM, and that the 

phrase should be removed from 

paragraph (j) of the supplemental 

NPRM. NWA stated that the term 

‘‘investigative and corrective actions’’ is 

not used in the service instructions and 

is not defined in the supplemental 

NPRM. NWA stated that in the process 

task flow of the service instructions, the 

‘‘determination’’ or ‘‘investigation’’ of 

spring material type was identified 

earlier in paragraph (g) of the 

supplemental NPRM, and the tasks that 

remain to be accomplished are 

compliance actions (inspect or replace), 

and not investigative actions. 

We disagree with NWA’s request to 

revise the phrase ‘‘investigative and 

corrective actions.’’ This terminology 

was defined in the Relevant Service 

Information section of the original 

NPRM. The ‘‘related investigative and 

corrective actions’’ include repetitive 

detailed and high frequency eddy 

current inspections for cracking of the 

aluminum spring arm, and the 

corrective action is replacing the spring 

arm with a new spring arm made of 

either aluminum or composite material. 

We have not changed this AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Add a Note to the 

Supplemental NPRM 

NWA also requested that a note be 

added to the supplemental NPRM 

stating that Parts 1 and 6 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, are for operator use and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1981 

compliance documentation is not 

required. 

NWA stated that the FAA did not 

address its concern in a previous 

comment on the original NPRM. NWA 

stated that the FAA was clear on how 

operators perform access and restoration 

per the operators’ normal maintenance, 

but the FAA may have missed the point 

that operators also have to retain 

technician sign-off of ADs as permanent 

records. NWA stated that if operators 

access and restore the area via other 

‘‘normal maintenance routine work 

cards,’’ the operators do not desire to 

maintain those other work cards just to 

comply with the retention of records 

aspect of rulemaking policy. NWA 

stated that the access and restoration are 

not part of the service instruction safety 

aspect that the FAA is trying to mitigate 

with this rulemaking. NWA stated that 

by placing a note in the AD that states 

that access/restoration is not part of the 

safety aspect of the rulemaking and that 

retention of records is not required for 

access/restoration, operators would be 

permitted to not have separate access/ 

restoration work cards. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request to delete Parts 1 

and 6 (access and close). As we clarified 

in the supplemental NPRM, Note 8 

under paragraph 3.A. of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, gives provisions for operators to 

use accepted alternative procedures for 

actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions when the 

words ‘‘refer to’’ are used. Those words 

are used in both Parts 1 and 6 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008. In addition, although these 

actions are necessary to accomplish the 

inspections, Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 

1, dated October 16, 2008, provides 

alternative methods for access and 

close-up, as defined in Notes 5 and 6 

under paragraph 3.A. of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008. Since the suggested note is 

already contained in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

service bulletin, no additional notes are 

necessary in this AD. 

We have changed paragraph (g) of this 

AD to limit the required actions to those 

specified only in Parts 2 through 5 of 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, dated 

October 16, 2008. 

Request To Revise the Initial 

Compliance Time 

One commenter, Jennifer Owens, 

requested that we revise the initial 

compliance time. The commenter stated 

that the issue of cracked and broken 

aluminum springs has been known to 

the FAA since at least September 2007 

(when the original Boeing 

‘‘paperwork’’—i.e., service information— 

was released). The commenter stated 

that under the original docket, 

published in March 2008, multiple 

parties requested that the rule be 

amended to refer to a later revision of 

‘‘the Boeing paperwork.’’ The 

commenter stated that this later revision 

of the ‘‘paperwork,’’ according to the 

current proposed rule, was released on 

October 16, 2008. The commenter also 

stated that the new proposed rule was 

published on October 19, 2009, just over 

a year since Boeing revised its 

‘‘paperwork.’’ 

The commenter suggested that the 

annual utilization rate of about 1,050 

flight cycles is representative of how 

many Model 757 airplanes are used. The 

commenter stated that given this delay, 

and based on this utilization, operators 

have had the opportunity to skip three 

or four of the required 300-cycle 

inspections and are approaching the 

point where they may skip the first of 

the 1,500-cycle inspections. The 

commenter stated that because of this 

delay, and the fact that the FAA chose 

instead to re-open the comment period, 

it further delayed the release of the final 

rule by another 18 months. The 

commenter stated that if a delay of 

approximately 3 years is acceptable, 

then the inspection intervals of 

approximately 2–3 months and 18 

months (based on the utilization 

contained above) are unnecessarily 

short. The commenter stated that if 

neither is true, then initial compliance 

times should be shortened to account 

for the delay in releasing the final rule. 

We assume the commenter is referring 

to Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin, 757–32–0176, dated September 

10, 2007, as ‘‘the original Boeing 

paperwork,’’ and Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, as ‘‘the later revision of the Boeing 

paperwork.’’ We disagree with the 

commenter’s request to revise the initial 

compliance time. We have determined 

that having a terminating modification 

for the required inspections provides a 

higher level of safety than the reliance 

on continued re-inspection. Also, in 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for this action, we considered the 

safety implications, parts availability, 

and normal maintenance schedules for 

the timely accomplishment of the 

modification. We have determined that 

the compliance time as proposed will 

ensure an acceptable level of safety and 

allow the modifications to be done 

during scheduled maintenance intervals 

for most affected operators. We have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Explanation of Change Made to This 

AD 

We have revised this AD to identify 

the legal name of the manufacturer as 

published in the most recent type 

certificate data sheet for the affected 

airplane models. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD with the changes described 

previously. We have determined that 

these changes will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Explanation of Changes To Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the NPRM, we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified hourly 

labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD would affect 

668 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it would take about 1 

work-hour per product to comply with 

this AD. The average labor rate is $85 

per work-hour. Based on these figures, 

we estimate the cost of this proposed 

AD for U.S. operators to be $56,780, or 

$85 per product. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

1982 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

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 this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

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 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. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2011–02–03 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–16576. Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0295; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–298–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective February 16, 

2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, 

and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 32: Landing Gear. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of cracked 

and broken aluminum springs. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked 

or broken springs. A cracked or broken spring 

could separate from the airplane and result 

in potential hazard to persons or property on 

the ground, or ingestion into the engine with 

engine damage and potential shutdown, or 

damage to the airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Inspections and Corrective Actions 

(g) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, 

except that where Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, 

dated October 16, 2008, specifies a 

compliance time after the date ‘‘on this 

service bulletin,’’ this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD: Do 

a general visual inspection to determine the 

material (aluminum or composite) of the two 

springs in the spin brake assemblies in the 

nose wheel well. A review of airplane 

maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of 

this inspection if the material can be 

conclusively determined from that review. At 

the applicable time specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, 

Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions, and all repetitive 

inspections thereafter in accordance with 

Parts 2 through 5 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, 

dated October 16, 2008; except as provided 

by paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Optional Terminating Actions 

(h) Replacing an aluminum spin brake 

assembly with a spin brake assembly made 

of composite material in accordance with 

Figure 5 of Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, dated 

October 16, 2008, ends the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD for that spring. 

(i) Replacing an aluminum spring with a 

spring made of corrosion–resistant steel 

(CRES), in accordance with Figure 6 of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, ends the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that 

spring. 

Exception to the Service Bulletin: Using a 

Serviceable Spin Brake Assembly 

(j) A serviceable spin brake assembly may 

be used to replace a cracked part, provided 

that it has been inspected and all applicable 

related investigative and corrective actions 

have been applied in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Parts Installation 

(k) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install an aluminum spring on 

any airplane unless it has been inspected and 

all applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions have been applied in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Credit for Previous Revision of Service 

Bulletin 

(l) Actions done before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, 

dated September 10, 2007, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(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. Send information to ATTN: Steve 

Fox, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, 

ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 917–6425; fax (425) 

917–6590; Or, e-mail information to 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(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) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that 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. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(n) You must use Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, 

dated October 16, 2008, to do the actions 

required by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. If you accomplish the optional 

actions specified in this AD, you must use 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, to perform those actions, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1983 

(2) 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 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the 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. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 30, 2010. 

Suzanne Masterson, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–371 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0228; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–252–AD; Amendment 

39–16574; AD 2011–02–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model MD–11 and MD–11F 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD requires 

a one-time inspection to detect damage 

of the wire assemblies of the tail tank 

fuel system, a wiring change, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This AD 

also requires, for certain airplanes, a 

general visual inspection for correct 

installation of the self-adhering hightemperature electrical insulation tape; 

installation of a wire assembly support 

bracket and routing wire assembly; 

changing wire supports; and installation 

of a wire protection bracket. This AD 

was prompted by fuel system reviews 

conducted by the manufacturer. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct a 

potential of ignition sources inside fuel 

tanks, which, in combination with 

flammable vapors, could result in a fuel 

tank fire or explosion, and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 16, 

2011. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of February 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, California 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; e-mail 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; 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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serj 

Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 

phone: (562) 627–5254; fax: (562) 627– 

5210; e-mail: Serj.Harutunian@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to 

amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an 

airworthiness directive (AD) that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

SNPRM published in the Federal 

Register on November 17, 2010 (75 FR 

70150). The original NPRM (75 FR 

12464, March 16, 2010) proposed to 

require a one-time inspection to detect 

damage of the wire assemblies of the tail 

tank fuel system, a wiring change, and 

corrective actions if necessary. The 

SNPRM proposed to revise the original 

NPRM by adding, for certain airplanes, 

a general visual inspection for correct 

installation of the self-adhering hightemperature electrical insulation tape; 

installation of a wire assembly support 

bracket and routing wire assembly; 

changing wire supports; and installation 

of a wire protection bracket. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

have considered the comment received. 

FedEx supports the SNPRM. 

Explanation of Change Made to the AD 

We have revised this AD to identify 

the legal name of the manufacturer as 

published in the most recent type 

certificate data sheet for the affected 

airplane models. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comment received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed except for minor editorial 

changes and the change described 

previously. We have determined that 

these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the SNPRM for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the SNPRM. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 110 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES