Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39943 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 29, 

2015. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16939 Filed 7–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0780; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–168–AD; Amendment 

39–18207; AD 2015–14–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for The 

Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes 

equipped with a main deck side cargo 

door (MDSCD). This AD was prompted 

by recent testing that indicates that 

intermodal containers, when loaded as 

cargo, under certain flight-load 

conditions, can shift and impact the 

adjacent fuselage frames. This AD 

requires revising the airplane flight 

manual (AFM) to incorporate 

limitations for carrying certain 

payloads. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent intermodal containers loaded in 

the offset method from shifting during 

flight gust loads and damaging fuselage 

frames, which could lead to the 

structural failure of the aft fuselage in 

flight and subsequent in-flight breakup 

of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 17, 

2015. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0780; 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 

Docket 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: 

Steven C. Fox, Senior Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6425; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

steven.fox@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to The Boeing Company Model 

747 airplanes equipped with an 

MDSCD. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on December 1, 2014 

(79 FR 71037). The NPRM was 

prompted by recent testing, which 

indicates that intermodal containers, 

when loaded as cargo, under certain 

flight-load conditions, can shift and 

impact the adjacent fuselage frames. The 

NPRM proposed to require revising the 

AFM to incorporate limitations for 

carrying certain payloads. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent intermodal 

containers loaded in the offset method 

from shifting during flight gust loads 

and damaging fuselage frames, which 

could lead to the structural failure of the 

aft fuselage in flight and subsequent inflight breakup of the airplane. 

Background 

Intermodal containers are common in 

the cargo shipping industry and 

transported by ships, trains, and trucks. 

The focus of this final rule is an 

intermodal container that is nominally 

20 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 8.5 feet 

tall. This nominally sized intermodal 

container includes the dimensions of an 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) container ISO 

668–1CC. Because the intermodal 

containers themselves do not meet the 

requirements of FAA Technical 

Standard Order TSO–C90D, ‘‘Cargo 

Pallets, Nets and Containers (Unit Load 

Devices),’’ the lower surface on these 

intermodal containers is incompatible 

with most airplane cargo-loading 

systems (CLSs). These intermodal 

containers, however, can be 

concentrically loaded on an FAAapproved TSO–C90D pallet with a 

certified net combination and loaded in 

the center of the airplane, restrained by 

the CLS or a series of straps connected 

to the aircraft structure in accordance 

with the airplane’s FAA-approved 

Weight and Balance Manual (WBM) 

procedures for cargo that is not a Unit 

Load Device (ULD). 

The WBM is part of the Operating 

Limitations section of the Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM). In accordance 

with 14 CFR 21.41, the Operating 

Limitations are part of the airplane type 

certificate and, therefore, can be 

modified only by changing that 

certificate; that is, by obtaining an 

amended or supplemental type 

certificate. Revisions to the AFM are 

approved as AFM supplements, and the 

approval is based on a finding that, with 

the AFM revisions, the airplane 

continues to meet the applicable 

airworthiness standards. Operators are 

required to comply with the Operating 

Limitations by 14 CFR 91.9(a). 

The FAA has become aware that some 

operators, both domestic and foreign, 

are not loading these containers in the 

center of the airplane, but rather in the 

standard left and right pallet positions. 

When loaded in this manner, the 8-foot, 

6-inch, height of the intermodal 

container interferes with the fuselage, so 

some operators have been transporting 

these intermodal containers shifted 

inboard, off of the FAA-approved TSO 

pallets, and attached to the pallet only 

with a net and/or straps. This method of 

transport is referred to as the ‘‘offset 

method.’’ The practice of offsetting the 

intermodal containers results in the 

certified pallet-net combination having 

slack in the net by the amount of the 

offset. FAA observations have found the 

offset for intermodal containers is as 

much as 9 inches, with the 

corresponding 9 inches of slack in the 

TSO pallet net. 

Although additional cargo straps have 

been used to restrain the intermodal 

containers to the pallets, the FAA 

determined that these straps are not 

effective, and the intermodal container 

can shift in flight. In 2013, a U.S. cargo 

operator requested permission from the 

FAA to carry intermodal containers on 

Boeing Model 747 airplanes using the 

offset method—similar to procedures 

used by other U.S. and non-U.S. air 

carriers. Based on the FAA’s review of 

the offset method, it denied the 

operator’s request. 

Industry Testing of the Offset Method 

In March 2014, some U.S. cargo 

operators and Boeing conducted a series 

of full-scale tests, witnessed by the 

FAA, to demonstrate that carrying 

intermodal containers by the offset 

method could be shown safe and 

compliant to the applicable regulations. 

The test procedures were developed by 

engineers from Boeing and some U.S. 

cargo operators, and were intended to 

show compliance for flight loads on 

Model 747 airplanes only. The results 

produced CLS failures and excessive 

deflections. The preliminary test results 

confirmed the FAA’s safety concerns. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39944 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

U.S. operators and Boeing conducted 

additional testing to demonstrate that 

carrying intermodal containers by the 

offset method could be shown to be safe 

and compliant with applicable 

regulations. This testing used methods 

from National Aerospace Standard 

(NAS) 3610, with maximum payloads 

that were reduced from those tested 

previously. The intent was for Boeing to 

use the test data to develop an 

appropriate loading method that could 

be incorporated into the Boeing Model 

747 WBMs. The certified pallet net was 

not used because previous testing 

showed it ineffective in restraining the 

ISO container as the offset of the 

container on the pallet introduces slack 

in the net, with the container essentially 

free to move laterally in the airplane by 

the amount of the offset. 

Significant engineering resources 

were applied, and a complex method of 

strapping installation and procedures 

and sequence for tightening the straps 

was developed to preclude the excessive 

deflections experienced during earlier 

tests. While a few load cases were 

successful, some had very small margins 

(precluding any reduction of the 

complexity of the nearly 100 straps 

required). The testing was halted after 

attempts to substantiate vertical loading 

repetitively overloaded the forward and 

aft CLS restraint locks, and the proposed 

cargo restraining method was deemed 

unviable. 

FAA engineering from the Transport 

Airplane Directorate has been 

extensively involved in the testing of 

offset loading methods for intermodal 

containers with the objective to 

determine and document a safe and 

compliant methodology that could be 

the basis for a Boeing Model 747 Weight 

and Balance Supplement for airline use 

worldwide. Testing to date indicates 

this objective has not been met. 

When positioned in accordance with 

the WBMs, an intermodal container is 

secured to the CLS pallet along its entire 

length by straps and netting. Offsetting 

the container has the effect of creating 

slack in the net and straps, except at the 

ends of the container. As a result, when 

gust loads are encountered, most of the 

loads are transferred to the locks at the 

ends of the container and are not shared 

with the locks in the middle. This 

uneven loading has the effect of 

exceeding the structural capability of 

the locks at the ends of the container. 

This phenomenon quickly failed the 

forward and aft CLS locks during 

vertical testing, as confirmed by both 

sets of industry testing. 

At this time, there is no offset method 

for restraining intermodal containers 

that has been demonstrated to be safe 

and compliant. 

Safety Issue 

The current practice of carrying an 

intermodal container by the offset 

method is not currently permitted by 

the Boeing Model 747 WBMs. A series 

of tests has verified that an intermodal 

container, under certain flight-load 

conditions, can shift in both the 

outboard and vertical directions. This 

shift by the intermodal container can 

damage as many as ten fuselage frames 

per container position during flight, 

leading to the structural failure of the aft 

fuselage in flight, and subsequent inflight breakup of the airplane. 

Normally, the FAA does not issue 

ADs to address non-compliance with 

existing regulations. But because of the 

widespread nature of these practices, 

the FAA has determined that issuing an 

AD is the most effective means of 

addressing this unsafe condition. 

This final rule, therefore, revises the 

Operating Limitations section of the 

FAA-approved AFM to incorporate 

limitations on carrying certain payloads. 

As revised, the AFM expressly states the 

pre-existing prohibition on carriage of 

either (1) intermodal containers 

nominally sized at 20 feet long, 8 feet 

wide, and 8.5 feet tall, or (2) ISO 668– 

1CC containers, if those containers are 

not concentrically loaded on a pallet 

and restrained to the aircraft in 

accordance with the FAA-approved 

WBMs or WBM supplement. 

Explanation of Changes to the Final 

Rule 

Since issuing the NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014), the FAA has 

learned that some operators might 

regard changes that they make to the 

Boeing Weight and Balance Manual to 

be ‘‘FAA approved,’’ even though the 

operators have not sought FAA approval 

through the supplemental type 

certificate process, as described in the 

NPRM. To clarify that only changes 

made through the type certificate 

process are considered ‘‘FAA 

approved,’’ we have revised the 

language of the final rule to specifically 

reference the FAA-approved Boeing 

type certificate Weight and Balance 

Manual or a Supplemental Weight and 

Balance Manual approved through the 

supplemental type certificate process. 

Given the comments opposing the 

proposed AD discussed below, it is 

apparent that the commenters were not 

confused on this point. Nevertheless, 

this clarification will prevent confusion 

for any operator in the future. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014) 

The Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA), stated that they 

fully support the intent of the NPRM (79 

FR 71037, December 1, 2014). 

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014): Intermodal 

Containers Are Permitted by WBMs 

The Cargo Airline Association, Atlas 

Air, International Air Transport 

Association (IATA), National Air Carrier 

Association (NACA), Kalitta Air, LLC 

(Kalitta), and the Michigan Senate 

requested that we withdraw the NPRM 

(79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014). The 

commenters asserted that offset 

intermodal containers are permitted by 

the Boeing Model 747 WBMs. The 

commenters also asserted that the 

Boeing Model 747 WBMs permit the 

restraint of an intermodal container and 

pallet assembly with cargo restraint 

straps only to the pallet (and not the 

airplane itself), whether or not the 

container is offset. The commenters 

concluded that the NPRM statement 

indicating that ‘‘the current practice of 

carrying an intermodal container by the 

offset method is not permitted by the 

Boeing Model 747 Weight and Balance 

Manual’’ is incorrect and completely at 

odds with Boeing’s WBMs. The 

commenters limited their views to only 

those Model 747 WBMs created by 

Boeing. 

We disagree with the request. Since 

the commenters did not address any 

supplemental WBMs produced by 

holders of supplemental type 

certificates (STCs), our response is 

limited to a discussion of the Boeing 

Model 747 WBMs. As explained below, 

contrary to the commenters’ assertions, 

the Boeing Model 747 WBMs do not 

permit loading of either offset 

intermodal containers or intermodal 

containers strapped only to the pallet. 

As discussed in the NPRM, in 

accordance with section 21.41 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

21.41), the operating limitations are part 

of the airplane’s type certificate (TC). 

The operating limitations specified in 

the Boeing Model 747 WBMs are 

established by the TC holder at the time 

of type certification as necessary to 

demonstrate that the airplane, when 

properly loaded, will comply with all 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39945 

1The FAA recently approved a supplement to the 

Boeing Model 747 WBMs that allows strapping of 

cargo to a pallet under limited circumstances that 

are not relevant to this rulemaking. 

applicable airworthiness requirements. 

One of these requirements is to 

demonstrate the capability of the 

airplane to continue safe operation 

when subjected to a range of structural 

loads that may be encountered during 

operations (14 CFR 25.1519). The 

Boeing Model 747 WBMs provide 

operators with detailed instructions, 

including restrictions, on how the 

airplane may be loaded such that after 

loading and during flight the airplane 

still is in compliance with the operating 

limitations. 

The Boeing Model 747 cargo airplanes 

are equipped with a cargo loading 

system, which is part of the airplane’s 

type design and consists of roller trays, 

guides, latches, and locks that restrain 

the cargo to the airplane for flight loads. 

A Unit Load Device (ULD) is a device 

for grouping and retaining cargo for 

transit. The Boeing Model 747 WBMs 

include, as part of the operating 

limitations, instructions that identify 

which ULDs may be loaded into the 

airplane’s cargo loading system on the 

main cargo deck of the airplane without 

additional restraint to the airplane’s 

structure. 

Although the actual wording in these 

manuals varies slightly, all Boeing 

Model 747 WBMs require that, to be 

carried on the main deck without 

additional restraints, ‘‘certified’’ ULDs 

must conform to FAA Technical 

Standard Order (TSO) TSO–C90, ‘‘Cargo 

Pallets, Nets, and Containers,’’ or to 

National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 

3610 (‘‘Cargo Unit Load Devices— 

Specification For’’), the document the 

TSO references as a requirement. NAS 

3610 is an industry standard used to 

define the required configuration and 

certification testing for various ULDs. 

The types of certified ULDs identified 

in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs are 

NAS 3610-compliant containers) and 

pallet-net combinations. Containers 

identified in NAS 3610 are attached 

directly to the airplane’s cargo loading 

system. Intermodal containers, which 

are the subject of this AD, do not meet 

the standard for NAS 3610 containers. 

For the pallet-net combinations, the 

cargo is restrained to the pallet by a net 

that attaches to the pallet on all four 

sides and covers the cargo. Under the 

Boeing Model 747 WBMs, an intermodal 

container may be loaded into a certified 

pallet-net combination ULD as long as 

the intermodal container is located 

within the perimeter of the pallet. 

However, as explained in the NRPM, an 

intermodal container offset from its 

pallet introduces slack in the 

corresponding net and, therefore, does 

not meet the requirements of NAS 3610 

and is not allowed as a certified ULD 

under the Boeing Model 747 WBMs. 

The Boeing Model 747 WBMs require 

that all cargo other than the identified 

ULDs be restrained to the airplane by 

straps in accordance with instructions 

specified in the WBMs. The Boeing 

Model 747 WBMs provide detailed 

instructions that define the specific 

locations where straps must be attached 

to the airplane structure, as well as 

other information such as maximum 

weights to be restrained at each 

location. With one recently approved 

exception,1 nothing in the Boeing Model 

747 WBMs or in NAS 3610 allows for 

the use of straps to restrain cargo to the 

ULD pallet itself. 

Therefore, contrary to the 

commenters’ assertions, the Boeing 

Model 747 WBMs do not permit loading 

of either offset intermodal containers or 

intermodal containers strapped only to 

the pallet. Furthermore, neither Boeing 

nor any of the commenters have shown 

that the airplane, when loaded with 

offset containers, complies with the 

applicable airworthiness standards of 

part 25. As discussed in the NPRM, any 

such showing would have to be done by 

a change to the type certificate in 

accordance with FAA Order 8110.4C. 

We have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014): History of Safety 

IATA, Kalitta, and the Michigan 

Senate opposed the NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014), stating that it 

does not refer to any incident or 

accident. The commenters reported that 

for more than 40 years, intermodal 

containers loaded as offset cargo have 

been carried with no damage to frames. 

We disagree with the commenters’ 

conclusion. As discussed in the NRPM, 

industry and Boeing testing have shown 

that offset loading of intermodal 

containers can allow the cargo to shift, 

which would be unsafe under certain 

flight load conditions. (The AD docket 

contains a Boeing presentation 

summarizing these test results.) The 

purpose of this AD, and all ADs, is to 

correct an unsafe condition regardless of 

whether that condition has caused 

accidents in the past. 

Furthermore, in general, the shifting 

of cargo in flight has resulted in 

numerous incidents and accidents. For 

example, on August 7, 1997, Fine Air 

Flight 101 crashed shortly after takeoff 

from Miami because cargo shifted. 

Similarly, all evidence indicates that on 

April 29, 2013, National Airlines Flight 

102 crashed shortly after takeoff from 

Bagram, Afghanistan, because cargo 

shifted. We have not changed this final 

rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014): Proposal 

Based on Unfounded Principles 

Atlas Air, the Cargo Airline 

Association, Kalitta, NACA, and United 

Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we 

withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014) because it misstates 

an important principle. The commenters 

noted that the NPRM stated that ‘‘the 

Weight and Balance Manual is part of 

the Operating Limitations section of the 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).’’ The 

commenters asserted that a reader could 

infer from this that all content in an 

airplane manufacturer’s WBMs is part of 

the Operating Limitations section of the 

AFM. The commenters contended that 

since Boeing’s Model 747 WBMs 

contain operating procedures in 

addition to operating limitations, only 

portions of the WBMs are part of the 

Operating Limitations section of the 

AFM. The commenters also noted that 

Boeing frequently revises the WBMs, 

and when Boeing does so, Boeing does 

not amend the type certificate, which 

the commenters assert would be ‘‘a 

laborious process.’’ 

We agree with the commenters’ 

proposition that not all of a 

manufacturer’s WBM is necessarily part 

of the AFM operating limitations, but 

we disagree with their assertion that 

FAA-approved loading instructions are 

not operating limitations. We also 

disagree with the commenters’ request 

to change the rule as originally 

proposed. As provided in 14 CFR 

25.1583(c), the WBM is referenced in 

the AFM and contains operating 

limitations approved under that section. 

Section 25.1583(c)(2) requires that the 

AFM include loading instructions that 

are necessary to ensure loading of the 

airplane within the weight and center of 

gravity limits, and to maintain the 

loading within these limits in flight. 

While the Boeing Model 747 WBMs may 

include information other than 

limitations, the loading instructions 

discussed previously are limitations, 

and the FAA approved the Boeing 

Model 747 WBMs based on a 

determination that, as operating 

limitations, these instructions were 

adequate to meet the requirements of 14 

CFR 25.1583. 

For many years the FAA has 

recognized that both the weight and 

balance information and the loading 

instructions are operating limitations. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39946 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2For example, a letter dated May 2, 2014, 

directing Kalitta to discontinue this practice is 

included in the docket. 

For example, in FAA Advisory Circular 

(AC) 25.1581–1, dated July 14, 1997 

(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

cb7efbdd420bd265862569b3005479d7/

$FILE/AC25-1581-1.pdf), the FAA 

stated, in Section 2b(1), ‘‘Any 

limitations on airplane loading 

associated with the stated weight 

limitations must be included in the 

AFM or addressed in a separate weight 

and balance document.’’ 

These loading instructions are the 

procedures that Boeing determined were 

necessary to load and restrain cargo for 

flight loads; these instructions are used 

to show compliance with the design 

requirements for the airplane, including 

the structural capabilities of the cargo 

loading system, airplane floors, and 

fuselage, and are therefore operating 

limitations. The types of ULDs and 

methods to restrain cargo are limitations 

provided in the Boeing Model 747 

WBMs that ensure the airplane structure 

is not overloaded throughout the 

airplane’s defined flight envelope. For 

this reason, additions to the approved 

list of ULDs or deviations to the 

structural tie-down locations that are 

not approved through the type 

certification process result in 

noncompliant and unknown conditions 

that could result in the structural 

overload to the airplane under certain 

flight loads. 

Adopting the commenters’ argument 

that these loading instructions are not 

limitations and, therefore, not 

mandatory would lead to the anomalous 

result that, while the weight and 

balance limitations are mandatory, the 

means to ensure they are complied with 

are not. 

Regarding the commenter’s statement 

that Boeing frequently changes the 

WBMs, those changes are in fact 

changes to the type certificate, which 

are approved by the FAA or its 

designees. We have not changed this 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014): AD Approach Is 

Overly Broad and Burdensome 

Kalitta asserted that the NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014) appears to 

assume that the offset configuration is 

already forbidden because it is not 

explicitly provided for in the Boeing 

Model 747 WBMs—i.e., unless the 

loading of a specific ULD or type of 

cargo and configuration is specifically 

defined in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs, 

it is prohibited. The commenter asserted 

that this is a novel interpretation and is 

unduly restrictive, contrary to accepted 

and normal air carrier operations and 

contrary to the FAA’s own guidance 

material, and will have a significant and 

far-reaching operational and economic 

impact on all U.S. air carriers in the 

future, no matter what kind of aircraft 

they operate. The commenter stated that 

the FAA should carefully consider the 

ramifications of adopting a policy of 

‘‘what is not explicitly allowed is 

forbidden.’’ The commenter stated that 

this approach reaches well beyond the 

particular matter at hand, and can create 

a regulatory environment that stifles 

innovation, and requires a manufacturer 

or the FAA to think in advance of every 

kind of operation that may possibly 

arise, and provide for it in the regulatory 

documents. According to the 

commenter, this would create an 

impossible burden on government and 

industry both. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

assertions. As discussed previously, the 

Boeing Model 747 WBMs define safe 

and compliant methods for loading the 

airplane. The Boeing Model 747 WBMs 

provide the instructions required by 14 

CFR 25.1583, enabling the operators to 

load and restrain cargo in a manner that 

does not permit the shifting of cargo 

during flight, which could cause 

damage to the airplane or result in a 

configuration leading to the loss of 

control of the airplane. As discussed 

previously, these instructions are 

considered operating limitations. 

Operation of the airplane beyond those 

limits is not permitted by the Boeing 

Model 747 WBMs. Section 

121.135(b)(21) requires operators to 

include in their manuals methods and 

procedures for maintaining the aircraft 

weight and center of gravity within 

approved limits. The unsafe condition 

addressed in this AD is a result of 

operators having adopted methods and 

procedures that are contrary to the 

WBM instructions and, as a result, not 

within the approved limits. 

Innovations are acceptable provided 

they meet the limits specified in the 

WBMs. Innovations that exceed those 

limits must be approved as changes to 

the WBM, as required by subparts D and 

E of 14 CFR part 21, and as provided in 

FAA Order 8110.4C, dated March 28, 

2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_

and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/

d21193af2d37a8ba862570ab0054c104/

$FILE/8110.4C_CHG5_

Incorporated.pdf), which describes the 

process for obtaining FAA approval for 

changes to the airplane’s type 

certificate. We have not changed this 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014): Unrealistic Cost 

Estimate 

Cargo Airline Association, Atlas Air, 

IATA, NACA, and Kalitta alleged that 

the FAA’s determination of the 

estimated costs to comply with the 

NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014) 

is fundamentally flawed because it is 

based on an unreasonably narrow view 

of the AD’s costs and, as a result, the 

FAA’s cost estimate is unrealistically 

low. The commenters concluded that 

the AD, if issued as proposed, would 

have significant, multi-million dollar 

cost consequences and competitiveness 

implications for all U.S. Model 747 

freighter operators, with no appreciable 

countervailing safety benefits. In 

particular, the commenters stated that 

when intermodal containers are carried 

in the offset manner, additional cargo 

can be carried in the adjacent cargo 

pallet positions. The commenters 

further asserted that if the intermodal 

containers are required to be restrained 

to the airplane, the necessary restraint 

configuration would preclude the 

carriage of the adjacent positions and 

that revenue from the adjacent positions 

would be lost. 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

allegations. As discussed previously and 

in the NPRM, carriage of offset 

containers is contrary to the limitations 

in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs and, 

therefore, contrary to 14 CFR 91.9(a). 

The intent of this AD is to require 

operators to revise their AFMs in a 

manner that eliminates this alreadynoncompliant practice, which we have 

determined creates an unsafe condition. 

Based on the FAA’s determination that 

this conduct is noncompliant, the FAA 

has already directed individual 

operators not to carry intermodal 

containers using the offset method.2

Issuance of this AD fulfills the FAA’s 

international obligations of informing 

foreign airworthiness authorities of the 

existence of this unsafe condition and of 

the appropriate means for addressing it, 

as well as reinforces the determination 

discussed previously. 

Moreover, the cost associated with 

ceasing noncompliant conduct is not 

attributable to this AD, regardless of 

how profitable that conduct may be. The 

cost information in AD actions describes 

only the direct costs of the specific 

action required by the AD—in this case, 

revising the AFM. We recognize that, in 

doing the actions required by an AD, 

operators might incur operational costs 

in addition to the direct costs. The cost 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39947 

analysis in AD rulemaking actions, 

however, typically does not include 

incidental or operational costs such as 

the time required for planning or other 

administrative actions. Our analysis also 

would not include possible revenue lost 

as a result of ending noncompliant 

operations. The FAA recognizes that the 

reason operators carry intermodal 

containers in violation of the Boeing 

Model 747 WBM limitations is that it is 

more profitable. The amount of revenue 

that could be generated when cargo is 

carried in a noncompliant manner is 

almost impossible to calculate. 

We have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014): Economic Impact on 

Small Entities 

Kalitta and the Michigan Senate 

stated that the NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014) fails to account for 

impact on small entities because most 

airlines that would be affected by the 

NPRM have fewer than 1,500 

employees. The commenters stated that 

this is a significant economic impact by 

loss of revenue. 

As discussed previously, we have 

determined that there is no significant 

impact on air carriers in the United 

States because loading offset intermodal 

containers is contrary to the limitations 

of the Boeing Model 747 WBMs, and is 

therefore already prohibited. That is, 

whether or not this final rule is issued, 

the practice of carrying intermodal 

containers in the offset method is not 

permitted for U.S. air carriers as it is a 

noncompliant and unsafe practice. 

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014): Inadequate Testing 

Cargo Airline Association, Atlas Air, 

NACA, IATA, Kalitta, and the Michigan 

Senate criticized the tests discussed in 

the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 

2014) that confirmed the FAA’s 

determination that loading containers in 

the offset position is an unsafe 

condition, arguing they were unrealistic 

or inconclusive. In general, the 

commenters claimed that the tests used 

configurations of intermodal containers 

and their restraints that are different 

from those used in service and applied 

pass-fail criteria that were unnecessarily 

stringent. 

We do not agree that the tests were 

unrealistic or inadequate. A detailed 

discussion of the commenters’ technical 

concerns regarding the tests is included 

in the AD docket. 

In short, the tests of offset intermodal 

containers discussed in the NPRM 

included a range of configurations, 

including those that the participants, 

including Boeing and cargo operators, 

considered necessary to show 

compliance to the regulations, and even 

a scenario using empty containers. The 

tests demonstrated that offset 

intermodal containers would not be 

restrained securely for flight loads such 

as heavy turbulence. As discussed 

previously, loading offset intermodal 

containers is already contrary to the 

limitations of the Boeing Model 747 

WBMs. If commenters believe that they 

can show compliance with the 

applicable part 25 airworthiness 

standards using offset containers, they 

may apply for supplemental type 

certificates (STCs). Any such STCs, if 

granted, would also be considered as a 

possible alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) to this AD. 

Request To Delay Issuance of AD 

Pending Acceptance of New Testing 

Kalitta, NACA, and the Michigan 

Senate requested that we delay issuing 

a final AD because new testing by 

Kalitta shows that the offset 

configuration can be used without 

posing a threat to safety. 

We disagree with the request. The test 

process and results have not been 

submitted to the FAA for approval. 

However, if the testing is completed and 

approved, it may serve as the basis for 

a new STC, which we would then 

consider as a possible AMOC to this AD. 

We have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014): Unnecessary 

Based on New Operating Specifications 

Cargo Airline Association, IATA, 

Kalitta, NACA, and the Michigan Senate 

requested that we withdraw the NPRM 

(79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014). IATA 

recently issued Operating Specification 

(OS) 6/13 (ULD: Operating 

Specifications). According to the 

commenters, IATA OS 6/13 provides 

guidance for safely handling multiple 

configurations of offset sea-land 

(intermodal) containers and ensuring 

the effectiveness and ultimate load 

strength of tie-down arrangements. The 

commenters asserted that offset methods 

for intermodal containers developed in 

the 1970s by some airlines had received 

Boeing support and approval. 

We disagree with the request. The 

commenters did not submit data to 

show how IATA OS 6/13 complies with 

the applicable regulations. Further, 

IATA OS 6/13 documents procedures 

similar to those found to have failed 

early on in the testing described in the 

preamble to the NPRM. For example, 

these procedures include strapping the 

intermodal container to the pallet, and 

not directly to the airplane. In fact, the 

procedures described in IATA OS 6/13 

are contrary to the Boeing Model 747 

WBMs for the reasons discussed 

previously. 

The commenters provided no 

evidence of Boeing support and 

approval regarding use of offset 

methods. Boeing’s comments did not 

include any statement that offset 

carriage of intermodal containers 

without restraint directly to the airplane 

complies with the Boeing Model 747 

WBMs. Neither the FAA nor Boeing has 

found any evidence that Boeing was 

involved in or aware of the carriage of 

intermodal containers in the 1970s. 

We have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue, although any 

operator may request approval of an 

AMOC for use of an STC WBM 

supplement. However, in this case, 

because IATA OS 6/13 is so similar to 

the documented tested failures, new test 

data would be required to show that the 

IATA method meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements to support 

approval of an STC. 

Request To Allow Offset Containers, If 

Strapped to Airplane 

Atlas Air, Boeing, AirbridgeCargo 

Airlines LLC (AirbridgeCargo), NACA, 

and UPS requested that the intermodal 

containers be allowed to be loaded 

offset on the pallet, provided that the 

containers are restrained directly to the 

airplane by retention straps. A number 

of the commenters stated that this 

practice is already allowed by the 

WBMs and that they currently use this 

method. 

We disagree with the request. None of 

the commenters provided any actual 

data demonstrating a compliant restraint 

method to the airplane for an offset 

intermodal container. Further, none 

have demonstrated that they currently 

use a method complying with the 

Boeing WBMS. The Boeing Model 747 

WBMs describe how to restrain cargo, 

offset or not, as special cargo restrained 

to the airplane; however, when the 

cargo is restrained correctly to the 

airplane, so many straps would be 

attached to so many locations on the 

aircraft that no cargo could be carried 

adjacent to the offset intermodal 

container. Thus, the benefit of increased 

capacity gained by installing an offset 

container would be lost. Therefore, the 

FAA finds it unlikely that operators are 

actually using compliant methods to 

restrain offset intermodal containers. 

We have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. However, under the 

provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, 

we will consider requests for approval 

of an AMOC if sufficient data are 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39948 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

submitted to substantiate that the 

alternative method would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. These data 

would need to include the compliant 

restraint methodology. 

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014): Unlevel 

Playing Field With International 

Carriers 

Kalitta and the Michigan Senate 

requested that we withdraw the NPRM 

(79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014). They 

asserted that by issuing this AD we 

provide their foreign competitors with a 

significant competitive advantage. 

Kalitta stated that while the FAA may 

believe that incorporation of these 

restrictions into an AD will solve the 

competition problem by ‘‘leveling the 

playing field,’’ as they will apply to all 

U.S. carriers, and will be adopted by 

many foreign governments, the agency 

needs to reconsider this position. The 

commenters added that foreign 

authorities may or may not adopt the 

AD as written, but they have wide 

latitude in what sort of AMOCs they 

will permit their carriers to use. The 

commenters also stated that foreign 

authorities will very likely look to the 

IATA standards to provide an 

acceptable AMOC, enabling their 

carriers to continue to operate in the 

very manner that will be foreclosed to 

U.S. air carriers. 

Kalitta asserted that this ‘‘unexpected 

gift to foreign airlines’’ is not 

necessitated by safety of flight, and is 

contrary to the policy considerations 

mandated by Congress in the 

International Air Transportation 

Competition Act (49 U.S.C. 40101), 

which requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to strengthen the 

competitive position of air carriers to 

ensure at least equality with foreign air 

carriers, including the attainment of the 

opportunity for air carriers to maintain 

and increase their profitability in air 

foreign transportation. According to the 

commenters, this obviously does not 

mean that the FAA should ignore 

serious safety issues out of concern for 

U.S. carriers’ competitive position, but 

that the agency must take account of 

U.S. carriers’ financial health and 

competitive standing, and avoid 

adopting measures and policies that 

harm carriers unless they are absolutely 

necessary. 

We disagree with the request. Section 

44701 of 49 U.S.C. requires the FAA to 

promote the safe flight of civil aircraft 

by, among other things, prescribing 

regulations and minimum standards for 

aircraft. In addition, the International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft 

(http://www.icao.int/safety/

airnavigation/NationalityMarks/

annexes_booklet_en.pdf) requires that 

civil aviation authorities of other 

countries take appropriate action in 

response to FAA ADs. Based on the 

FAA’s determination of the unsafe 

condition addressed by this AD, we 

expect foreign authorities to adopt 

similar requirements. Regarding the 

potential for other civil aviation 

authorities to adopt IATA’s procedures 

as an AMOC for their ADs, as discussed 

previously, the IATA procedures are 

similar to those that have been tested 

previously and that the FAA considers 

to be unsafe. We have no reason to 

believe other authorities would reach a 

different conclusion. 

We have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014) or Delay 

Issuance of AD Pending WBM Revision 

NACA and AirbridgeCargo requested 

that we delay issuance of the AD until 

all new testing is completed. Based on 

its understanding of the current round 

of testing, NACA stated that there is a 

strong likelihood the Boeing Model 747 

WBMs will be revised. AirbridgeCargo 

proposed that further research be done 

to establish a weight limit for 

intermodal containers. The commenters 

therefore preferred a revised WBM to an 

AD, which would also allow U.S. cargo 

carriers to fully compete with foreign 

carriers on a level playing field. 

We disagree with the request. To date, 

all testing to support a revision to the 

Boeing Model 747 WBMs has been 

unsuccessful. Although there is a 

current plan for more testing by a U.S. 

air carrier to support an STC 

application, it is unclear if the testing 

will be successful and when it will be 

completed. If the testing resumes and 

provides a successful conclusion, and if 

sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the products or 

alternative methods would provide an 

acceptable level of safety, the FAA 

could consider new methods or 

products as acceptable for compliance 

with the requirements of this AD. We 

have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Change Requirement To 

Revise AFM 

Boeing requested that we revise 

paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014), which 

proposed to require revising the 

Operating Limitations section of the 

AFM. Boeing stated that airlines are not 

able to revise a Boeing AFM. Boeing 

requested that we change the 

requirement to ‘‘insert a copy of this AD 

into the Limitations section of the 

AFM.’’ 

We disagree with the request. 

Paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014) would allow 

operators to insert a copy of this AD into 

the Limitations section of the AFM. 

However, operators may also comply 

with this AD by revising the operating 

limitations. Operating limitations are a 

part of the type certificate for an 

airplane. For many years, we have 

imposed operating restrictions that are 

necessary to address identified unsafe 

conditions by requiring revisions to the 

Operating Limitations section of the 

AFM. For this reason, as stated in the 

NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014), 

we must engage in rulemaking (i.e., 

issuance of an AD) in order to make the 

revisions mandatory for previously 

type-certificated airplanes. While the 

Boeing Model WBMs are contained in a 

‘‘Boeing document’’ in the sense that 

Boeing originally produced it, the 

document, nevertheless, is a part of the 

airplane flight manual that operators 

must use to operate the airplane 

properly. Of course, those operators that 

have previously revised the required 

AFM limitations are given credit for 

having previously accomplished the 

requirements of this AD, as allowed by 

paragraph (f) of this AD. The legal effect 

is the same: The operator is required to 

comply with the limitations referenced 

in 14 CFR 91.9(a). We have not changed 

this final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Description of Issue 

Prompting Rulemaking 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

description of the issue that prompted 

the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 

2014). The NPRM stated that recent 

testing indicates that intermodal 

containers, when loaded as cargo, can 

shift. While implicitly agreeing that 

loading offset containers is unsafe 

unless they are restrained directly to the 

airplane, Boeing requested that we 

change the wording to explain that the 

condition is limited to ‘‘cargo using a 

TSO–C90 certified ULD.’’ 

We disagree with the requested 

change. The SUMMARY section of this 

final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD 

go on to explain that intermodal 

containers loaded in the offset method 

are the subject of this AD, and the type 

of ULD does not change the unsafe 

condition. Further, not all Boeing Model 

747 WBMs refer to TSO–C90; several 

refer directly to the TSO–C90-required 

document NAS 3610. We have therefore 

not revised this final rule regarding this 

issue. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39949 

Request To Delete Reference to TSO 

Revision Level 

Boeing and UPS stated that the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 

2014) referred to a ‘‘TSO–C90D’’ pallet. 

Revision D is the latest issue of TSO– 

C90, and per the WBMs applicable to 

Boeing Model 747 airplanes, approved 

ULDs for carriage may conform to the 

TSO–C90 revision to which they were 

certified. UPS recommends revising the 

Discussion section of the NPRM to 

remove the revision level when TSO– 

C90 is referenced. 

We agree that the revision level of 

TSO–C90 does not matter; an 

intermodal container conforms to none 

of the revision levels. However, the 

Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014) is not 

repeated in this final rule. No change to 

this final rule is necessary. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

as proposed—except for minor editorial 

changes. We have determined that these 

minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 

71037, December 1, 2014) for correcting 

the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 71037, 

December 1, 2014). 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 98 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate 

the following costs to comply with this 

AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

AFM revision ........................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ......................................... $0 $85 $8,330 

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 

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), 

(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. 

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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2015–14–09 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–18207; Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0780; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–168–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective August 17, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 

747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 

747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, 

747SP, 747–8F, and 747–8 series airplanes, 

certificated in any category, equipped with a 

main deck side cargo door (MDSCD). 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by recent testing 

that indicates that intermodal containers, 

when loaded as cargo, under certain flightload conditions, can shift and impact the 

adjacent fuselage frames. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent intermodal containers loaded 

in the offset method from shifting during 

flight gust loads and damaging fuselage 

frames, which could lead to the structural 

failure of the aft fuselage in flight, and 

subsequent in-flight breakup of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Revision of Airplane Flight Manual 

(AFM) 

Within 14 days after the effective date of 

this AD, revise the Operating Limitations 

section of the FAA-approved AFM to include 

the information in figure 1 to paragraph (g) 

of this AD. This may be accomplished by 

inserting a copy of this AD into the 

Limitations section of the AFM. 

FIGURE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (g) OF THIS

AD—AFM REVISION

Unless approved by the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, the carriage of the following payloads is prohibited: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39950 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

FIGURE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (g) OF THIS

AD—AFM REVISION—Continued 

(1) Intermodal containers nominally sized at 

20 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 8.5 feet tall 

that are not concentrically loaded on a pallet and restrained to the aircraft in accordance with the FAA-approved Boeing type 

certificate Weight and Balance Manual or a 

supplemental type certificate Weight and 

Balance Supplement. 

(2) ISO 668-1CC containers that are not concentrically loaded on a pallet and restrained to the aircraft in accordance with 

the FAA-approved Boeing type certificate 

Weight and Balance Manual or a supplemental type certificate Weight and Balance 

Supplement. 

Note: Both payloads 1 and 2 may be concentrically loaded on a pallet and netted in 

accordance with the FAA-approved Weight 

and Balance Manual and then loaded in 

the center of the airplane and restrained to 

the airplane by the approved center loaded 

cargo restraint system or restrained directly 

to the airplane, both as defined in the FAAapproved Weight and Balance Manual. 

(h) Special Flight Permits 

Special flight permits, as described in 

Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 

and 21.199), are not allowed if any 

intermodal container prohibited as specified 

in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is on 

board. For special flight permits, carriage of 

freight is not allowed. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@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. 

(j) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Steven C. Fox, Senior Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6425; fax: 425– 

917–6590; email: steven.fox@faa.gov. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, 

2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17031 Filed 7–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 736, 740, 744, 748, and 

774 

[Docket No. 150325297–5297–01] 

RIN 0694–AG59 

Clarifications and Corrections to the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR): Control of Spacecraft Systems 

and Related Items the President 

Determines No Longer Warrant Control 

Under the United States Munitions List 

(USML) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule makes 

additional clarifications and corrections 

to the interim final rule that was 

published on May 13, 2014. The May 13 

rule added controls to the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) for 

spacecraft and related items that the 

President has determined no longer 

warrant control under United States 

Munitions List (USML) Category XV— 

spacecraft and related items. 

The changes included in this final 

rule are limited to corrections and 

clarifications to what was included in 

the interim final rule. This is the second 

corrections and clarifications rule BIS 

has published for the May 13 rule. 

These corrections and clarifications 

were also informed by comments 

received in response to the May 13 rule 

that included a request for comments. 

The corrections and clarifications to 

the May 13 rule are also part of 

Commerce’s retrospective regulatory 

review plan under Executive Order (EO) 

13563 (see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this rule for 

information on the availability of the 

plan). 

DATES: This rule is effective July 13, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the ECCNs included in 

this rule, contact Dennis Krepp, Office 

of National Security and Technology 

Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry 

and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Telephone: 202–482–1309, 

email: Dennis.Krepp@bis.doc.gov. For 

general questions about the regulatory 

changes pertaining to satellites, 

spacecraft, and related items, contact 

the Regulatory Policy Division, Office of 

Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry 

and Security, at 202–482–2440 or email: 

rpd2@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This final rule makes corrections and 

clarifications to the interim final rule, 

Revisions to the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR): Control of 

Spacecraft Systems and Related Items 

the President Determines No Longer 

Warrant Control Under the United 

States Munitions List (USML), that was 

published on May 13, 2014 (79 FR 

27417) (May 13 rule). The May 13 rule 

added controls to the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) for 

spacecraft and related items that the 

President has determined no longer 

warrant control under United States 

Munitions List (USML) Category XV— 

spacecraft and related items. The vast 

majority of the changes included in the 

May 13 rule have been implemented as 

published in the interim final rule and 

are not republished in this final rule. A 

full description of those changes can be 

found in the Background section and 

the regulatory text of the May 13 rule. 

BIS also published corrections and 

clarifications to the May 13 rule in a 

final rule published on November 12, 

2014 (79 FR 67055). 

The changes included in this final 

rule are limited to corrections and 

clarifications to what was included in 

the May 13 rule but are also informed 

by comments received in response to 

the May 13 rule. These corrections and 

clarifications to the May 13 rule are 

described below. 

In § 736.2 (General Prohibitions), this 

final rule revises the heading of 

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) (Additional country 

scope of prohibition for 9x515 or ‘‘600 

series’’ items) to remove the term 

‘‘additional.’’ The country scope of 

prohibition of paragraph (b)(3)(iii) for 

the 9x515 and ‘‘600 series’’ items is 

specified in this paragraph for purposes 

of General Prohibition Three. The 

country scope of prohibition of 

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) for the 9x515 items 

applies to destinations in Country 

Groups D:5 and E:1 (see Supplement 

No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). However, 

because of the use of the term 

‘‘additional’’ in the heading of 

paragraph (b)(3)(iii), BIS has received 

questions from the public whether the 

country scope of prohibition specified 

in paragraph (b)(3)(i) also needs to be 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES