1552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

§ 304.34 Other rights and services. 

Nothing in this subpart shall be 

construed to entitle any person, as of 

right, to any service or to the disclosure 

of any record to which such person is 

not entitled under the Privacy Act. 

Dated: January 4, 2011. 

Shawne C. McGibbon, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–146 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6110–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–1118; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–318–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

NPRM for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) that applies to all Boeing Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 

series airplanes. The original NPRM 

would have superseded an existing AD 

that currently requires reviewing the 

airplane maintenance records to 

determine whether an engine has been 

removed from the airplane since the 

airplane was manufactured. For 

airplanes on which an engine has been 

removed, the existing AD also requires 

an inspection of the aft engine mount to 

determine if the center link assembly is 

correctly installed, and follow-on 

actions if necessary. The original NPRM 

proposed to require the same actions for 

airplanes on which the engine has not 

been previously removed. The original 

NPRM resulted from reports indicating 

that operators found that the center link 

assembly for the aft engine mount was 

reversed on several airplanes that had 

not had an engine removed since 

delivery. This new action revises the 

original NPRM by expanding the 

applicability to include Model 737– 

900ER airplanes. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to prevent 

increased structural loads on the aft 

engine mount, which could result in 

failure of the aft engine mount and 

consequent separation of the engine 

from the airplane. 

ADDRESSES: We must receive comments 

on this supplemental NPRM by 

February 25, 2011. 

DATES: You may send comments by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 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, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

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

me.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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6450; fax (425) 917–6590. 

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–2008–1118; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–318–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 proposed to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) with a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the 

‘‘original NPRM’’) to supersede AD 

2003–03–01, Amendment 39–13025 (68 

FR 4367, January 29, 2003). The original 

NPRM applied to all Model 737–600, 

–700, –700C, –800, and –900 series 

airplanes. The original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64568). The 

original NPRM would have superseded 

an existing AD that currently requires 

reviewing the airplane maintenance 

records to determine whether an engine 

has been removed from the airplane 

since the airplane was manufactured. 

For airplanes on which an engine has 

been removed, the existing AD also 

requires an inspection of the aft engine 

mount to determine if the center link 

assembly is correctly installed, and 

follow-on actions if necessary. The 

original NPRM proposed to require the 

same actions for airplanes on which the 

engine has not been previously 

removed. 

Actions Since Original NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the original NPRM, 

the manufacturer has informed us that 

Model 737–900ER airplanes should be 

included in the applicability of the 

supplemental NPRM. Model 737–900ER 

airplanes were not being produced in 

May 2004 when Revision 3, dated May 

20, 2004, of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–71A1462, was issued. 

(Revision 3 was referred to as an 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

proposed actions in the original NPRM.) 

Following production it was determined 

that the affected aft engine mount is 

interchangeable with Model 737–900ER 

airplanes; however, those airplanes 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1553 

were inspected in production to ensure 

that the center link was properly 

installed. Therefore, the requirements in 

the existing AD do not apply to those 

airplanes. However, since we are 

including airplanes on which the 

engines have been removed since 

production, we have added Model 737– 

900ER airplanes to the applicability 

section of this supplemental NPRM. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments on the original NPRM. 

Request for Exemption From AD 

Requirements 

American Airlines (AA) asks that all 

operators that have performed the 

actions specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 3, 

dated May 20, 2004, be exempt from 

repeating maintenance actions in 

accordance with the original NPRM for 

a maintenance program that is already 

in place and proven effective. AA states 

that it has exceeded the requirements of 

AD 2003–03–01 by inspecting both 

engine aft mount center link assemblies, 

regardless of the stipulation in the 

existing AD, which limited the 

inspection requirement to engines 

removed since the airplane date of 

manufacture. AA adds that the 

inspections revealed that none of its 

installed or spare engines had 

incorrectly installed aft mount center 

link assemblies. AA notes that it is 

doing Part 2 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin at 

every engine shop visit, and has 

implemented maintenance task 

documentation to verify the proper aft 

mount center link configuration at every 

engine change. AA concludes that it has 

not accepted delivery of any additional 

Model 737 airplanes since the release of 

the existing AD and Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 

3, dated May 20, 2004. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request. Actions done in accordance 

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

71A1462, Revision 3, before the 

effective date of this AD are acceptable 

for compliance with the AD, as 

indicated by the phrase ‘‘unless the 

actions have already been done’’ in 

paragraph (f) of this AD. We have made 

no change to the supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

Request To Change Paragraph (d) 

Boeing asks that paragraph (d) of the 

original NPRM be changed to indicate 

that the center link assembly for the aft 

engine mount was reversed on one 

airplane that had not had an engine 

removed since delivery. Boeing is aware 

of only one such report. 

We do not agree with the commenter. 

We have received another report 

indicating that some airplanes were 

found with the engine mounts installed 

incorrectly on engines that had not been 

removed since airplane delivery. 

Therefore, we have not changed 

paragraph (d) of the NPRM (paragraph 

(e) of the supplemental NPRM). 

Request To Change Paragraph (n) 

Boeing asks that paragraph (n) of the 

original NPRM be changed to clarify 

parts not affected by the ‘‘Parts 

Installation’’ paragraph by including the 

permanent part marking on the center 

link assembly, as specified in Part 2 of 

the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 

3, dated May 20, 2004. Boeing states 

that this change would be equivalent to 

an existing alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) for AD 2003–03– 

01, requiring the installation of marked 

engine mounts, as specified in the 

approved section of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 

3, dated May 20, 2004. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. We have changed 

paragraph (n) of the supplemental 

NPRM to include permanent part 

marking on the center link assembly, as 

specified in Part 2 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 3, 

dated May 20, 2004. 

Request To Clarify Requirements in 

Paragraph (n) 

Japan Airlines (JAL) asks for 

clarification whether the requirement in 

paragraph (n) of the original NPRM 

applies only to airplanes affected by 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 

2004; or to all Model 737–600, –700, 

–700C, –800, and –900 series airplanes. 

JAL states that if the requirement in 

paragraph (n) applies to all Model 

737NG (next generation) airplanes then 

a change should be made to paragraph 

(n) of the supplemental NPRM for 

clarification. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concern and provide the following 

clarification. As noted under ‘‘Actions 

Since Original NPRM Was Issued,’’ we 

have added Model 737–900ER airplanes 

to the applicability section of this 

supplemental NPRM; therefore, the 

requirement in paragraph (n) of the 

supplemental NPRM applies to all 

Model 737NG airplanes. No change to 

paragraph (n) of the supplemental 

NPRM is necessary. 

Request To Change Paragraphs (i) and 

(o) 

CFM International states that the 

acronym CFMI is not accurate and 

recommends using CFM International 

(CFM) throughout the NPRM. 

We agree that the correct acronym 

should be used in the supplemental 

NPRM and in future rulemaking. 

However, CFMI is not referred to 

anywhere in this supplemental NPRM; 

therefore, no change is necessary. 

CFM also asks that paragraphs (i) and 

(o) of the original NPRM be changed to 

include the Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Engine Certification Office 

(ECO), as an approved source for 

obtaining repair procedures. CFM states 

that the engine mounting lugs and 

adjacent engine turbine rear frame are 

under the responsibility of CFM as part 

of the engine type certificate. CFM notes 

that it is in charge of approval of repairs 

by delegation of both engine authorities, 

which are the FAA and European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); CFM is 

a joint certification. CFM adds that for 

any part problems it contacts the ECO, 

in Burlington, Massachusetts, and the 

EASA Engine Certification Office, in 

Cologne, Germany. In light of this, CFM 

does not recommend the parts be 

repaired under approval of a Boeing 

Representative. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter for the reasons provided. We 

agree that the appropriate office for 

approval of certain repairs specified in 

the original NPRM is the ECO. 

Paragraph (i) of the original NPRM is a 

restatement of the requirements in AD 

2003–03–01. However, paragraph (i) of 

the supplemental NPRM does refer to 

paragraph (o) of the supplemental 

NPRM for AMOC approval. We have 

changed paragraph (o) of this 

supplemental NPRM to allow for certain 

AMOC approvals by the ECO. 

Explanation of Additional Changes 

Made to This Supplemental NPRM 

We have changed this supplemental 

NPRM to identify the legal name of the 

manufacturer as published in the most 

recent type certificate data sheet for the 

affected airplane models. 

We have added a new paragraph (d) 

to this supplemental NPRM to provide 

the Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America subject code 71: Powerplant. 

This code is added to make this 

supplemental NPRM parallel with other 

new AD actions. We have reidentified 

subsequent paragraphs accordingly. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

Certain changes discussed above 

expand the scope of the original NPRM; 

therefore, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

public comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the original NPRM, 

we have increased the labor rate in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per work 

hour to $85 per work hour. The Costs 

of Compliance information, below, 

reflects this increase in the specified 

hourly labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 1,846 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

We estimate that 854 airplanes of U.S. 

registry would be affected by this 

proposed AD. There are no new 

requirements in this proposed AD; 

however, we have expanded the 

applicability as noted under ‘‘Actions 

Since Original NPRM Was Issued.’’ The 

current costs for this proposed AD are 

recalculated for the convenience of 

affected operators, as follows: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Parts Cost per 

airplane Fleet cost 

Maintenance records review (required by AD 2003–03–01) .......................................... 1 $0 $85 $72,590 

Inspection for correct installation of center link assembly (new proposed action) ......... 1 0 85 72,590 

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 have 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 that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this supplemental NPRM 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. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing amendment 39–13025 (68 FR 

4367, January 29, 2003) and adding the 

following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2008–1118; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–318–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by February 25, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2003–03–01, 

Amendment 39–13025. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 737 –600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 71: Powerplant. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports indicating 

that operators found that the center link 

assembly for the aft engine mount was 

reversed on several airplanes that had not 

had an engine removed since delivery. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent increased 

structural loads on the aft engine mount, 

which could result in failure of the aft engine 

mount and consequent separation of the 

engine from the airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 

2003–03–01 

Review of Maintenance Records 

(g) For Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

and –900 series airplanes: Within 90 days 

after February 13, 2003 (the effective date of 

AD 2003–03–01), review the airplane 

maintenance records to determine whether 

either engine has been removed since the 

airplane’s date of manufacture. If neither 

engine has been removed since the airplane’s 

date of manufacture, no further action is 

required by this paragraph. 

Inspection of Engines That Have Been 

Removed to Determine if Center Link 

Assembly is Installed Correctly 

(h) For Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

and –900 series airplanes on which any 

installed engine has been removed from the 

airplane since the airplane’s date of 

manufacture: Within 90 days after February 

13, 2003, do a one-time general visual 

inspection to determine if the center link 

assembly of the aft engine mount is installed 

correctly, in accordance with the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1555 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 1, 

dated November 7, 2002; or Revision 3, dated 

May 20, 2004. If the center link assembly is 

installed correctly, no further action is 

required by paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD for 

that engine. As of the effective date of this 

AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–71A1462, Revision 3. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual 

examination of an interior or exterior area, 

installation, or assembly to detect obvious 

damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of 

inspection is made from within touching 

distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror 

may be necessary to ensure visual access to 

all surfaces in the inspection area. This level 

of inspection is made under normally 

available lighting conditions such as 

daylight, hanger lighting, flashlight, or 

droplight and may require removal or 

opening of access panels or doors. Stands, 

ladders, or platforms may be required to gain 

proximity to the area being checked.’’ 

Follow-on and Corrective Actions 

(i) For airplanes on which any center link 

assembly is found installed incorrectly 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(h), (k), or (l) of this AD: Before further flight, 

do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1), 

(i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, 

Revision 1, dated November 7, 2002; or 

Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004; except that 

it is not necessary to submit a report of 

findings to the airplane manufacturer. As of 

the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, 

Revision 3. 

(1) Remove the center link assembly and 

install it correctly. 

(2) Perform a detailed inspection of the 

engine mounting lugs and engine turbine rear 

frame for cracking, yielding, buckling, or 

wear damage. 

(3) Perform a detailed inspection of the 

hardware for the aft engine mount; including 

the center link assembly, right link assembly, 

aft mount hanger assembly, and link pins; for 

cracking, yielding, buckling, or wear damage. 

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’ 

Repair 

(j) If any cracking, yielding, buckling, or 

wear damage is found during the inspections 

required by paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of this 

AD: Before further flight, replace the 

discrepant part with a new or serviceable 

part, or repair in accordance with a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Inspection of Engines That Have Not Been 

Removed To Determine if Center Link 

Assembly Is Installed Correctly 

(k) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 3, 

dated May 20, 2004, on which any installed 

engine has not been removed from the 

airplane since the airplane’s date of 

manufacture: Within 90 days after the 

effective date of this AD, do a detailed 

inspection to determine if the center link 

assembly of the aft engine mount is installed 

correctly, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 3, 

dated May 20, 2004. If the center link is 

installed correctly, no further action is 

required by this paragraph for that engine. 

Follow-on and Corrective Actions 

(l) For airplanes on which any center link 

assembly is found installed incorrectly 

during the inspection required by paragraph 

(k) of this AD: Before further flight, do the 

follow-on and corrective actions required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous 

Service Information 

(m) Inspections and corrective actions 

done before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with a Boeing service bulletin 

listed in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of this AD. 

TABLE 1—PREVIOUS SERVICE BULLETINS

Boeing service bulletin Revision— Dated— 

737–71A1462 ............................................................................................................................... Original ........................ August 29, 2002. 

737–71A1462 ............................................................................................................................... 1 .................................. November 7, 2002. 

737–71A1462 ............................................................................................................................... 2 .................................. May 29, 2003. 

Parts Installation 

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

person may install an engine on any airplane 

identified in paragraph (c) of this AD unless 

the actions required by paragraph (n)(1) or 

(n)(2) of this AD are accomplished. 

(1) The inspection is accomplished in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 

2004, and the center link assembly of the aft 

engine mount is found to be installed 

correctly. 

(2) The hanger fitting and center link 

assembly are marked and part marked in 

accordance with Part 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 3, 

dated May 20, 2004. 

Note 3: For hanger fittings and center link 

assemblies marked and part marked in 

production, as specified in Part 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–71A1462, Revision 3, 

dated May 20, 2004, the actions specified in 

paragraph (n)(2) of this AD do not apply. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(o) The certification office specified in 

paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(1) For the structure identified in 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: The Manager, 

Engine Certification Office (ECO), FAA. Send 

information to ATTN: Antonio Cancelliere, 

Aerospace Engineer, ANE–141, FAA, ECO, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA 01803–5299; telephone 781–238–7751; 

fax 781–238–7199. 

(2) For the structure identified in 

paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: The Manager, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA. Send information to ATTN: Alan Pohl, 

Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM– 

120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 917–6450; fax (425) 917– 

6590. Information may be e-mailed to: 9-

ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(3) 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. 

(4) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD if it 

is approved by 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 17, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–367 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0703; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–093–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet 

Series 700, 701 & 702) Airplanes, 

Model CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet 

Series 705) Airplanes, and Model CL– 

600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

NPRM for the products listed above. 

This action revises the earlier NPRM by 

expanding the scope. This proposed AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

There have been four reports of loose or 

detached main landing gear torque link apex 

pin locking plate and the locking plate 

retainer bolt. This condition could result in 

torque link apex pin disengagement, heavy 

vibration during landing, damage to main 

landing gear components and subsequent 

main landing gear collapse. 

* * * * * 

The proposed AD would require 

actions that are intended to address the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (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 W12–40, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., 400 Cote-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Quebec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; 

e-mail thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.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 

Operations office 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 Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– 

7355; fax (516) 794–5531. 

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–2009–0703; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–093–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 based on 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 proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with an earlier NPRM for the 

specified products, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 5, 2009 (74 FR 38993). That 

earlier NPRM proposed to require 

actions intended to address the unsafe 

condition for the products listed above. 

Since that earlier NPRM was issued, 

we have determined that main landing 

gear (MLG) shock strut assemblies 

having part number (P/Ns) 49000–11 

through 49000–22 inclusive and serial 

numbers (S/Ns) 0001 through 0284 

inclusive are rotable parts. Therefore, 

the possibility exists that these parts 

might be installed on additional 

airplanes. For this reason, we find it 

necessary to require an inspection to 

determine if the subject MLG shock 

strut assemblies are installed for all 

Model CL–600–2C10 airplanes having 

S/Ns 10003 and subsequent, and Model 

CL–600–2D15 and Cl–600–2D24 

airplanes having S/Ns 15001 and 

subsequent. Therefore, for all affected 

airplanes, we are revising this 

supplemental NPRM to add an 

inspection to determine the part and 

serial numbers of the MLG shock strut 

assemblies installed. 

You may obtain further information 

by examining the MCAI in the AD 

docket. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments received on the earlier 

NPRM. 

Request To Revise Paragraphs (f)(1) and 

(f)(2) of the Earlier NPRM 

American Eagle Airlines (American 

Eagle) requested that we revise 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of the earlier 

NPRM to cover Model CL–600–2C10 

airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 

10003 and subsequent, equipped with 

MLG shock strut assemblies having part 

numbers (P/Ns) 49000–11 through 

49000–22 inclusive and S/Ns 0001 

through 0252 inclusive. The commenter 

stated the following: 

• If one of the affected MLG shock 

strut assemblies were installed on an 

airplane with a S/N of 10224 or greater, 

paragraph (f)(1) of the earlier NPRM 

would not require the assembly to be 

inspected. 

• If an MLG shock strut assembly that 

is not in the affected range were 

installed on an airplane with S/N 10003 

through 10223 inclusive, paragraph 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS