This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

33193 

Vol. 78, No. 107 

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0856; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–093–AD; Amendment 

39–17464; AD 2013–11–04] 

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 certain 

The Boeing Company Model 747–100, 

747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 

747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747– 

400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes; Model 767–200, –300, 

–300F, and –400ER series airplanes; and 

Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and 

–300ER series airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by operator or in-service 

reports of burned Boeing Material 

Specification (BMS) 8–39 urethane 

foam, and a report from the airplane 

manufacturer indicating that airplanes 

were assembled, throughout various 

areas of the airplane (including flight 

deck and cargo compartments), with 

seals made of BMS 8–39 urethane foam, 

a material with fire-retardant properties 

that deteriorate with age. This AD 

requires replacing certain seals made of 

BMS 8–39 urethane foam. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent the failure of 

urethane seals to maintain sufficient 

Halon concentrations in the cargo 

compartments to extinguish or contain 

fire or smoke, and to prevent 

penetration of fire or smoke in areas of 

the airplane that are difficult to access 

for fire and smoke detection or 

suppression. 

DATES: This AD is effective July 9, 2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of July 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

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

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

M. Brown, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin 

Safety and Environmental Systems 

Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6476; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: Eric.M.Brown@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on August 21, 2012 (77 FR 

50411). That NPRM proposed to require 

replacing seals made of BMS 8–39 

urethane foam in certain areas of the 

airplane. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 50411, 

August 21, 2012) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request for Safety Determination 

United Parcel Service (UPS) noted 

that the proposed actions specified in 

the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 

2012) affect a relatively small quantity 

of small parts in the airplane, and that 

the referenced sources of service 

information were not identified as 

‘‘alert’’ service bulletins. UPS therefore 

requested additional information on the 

risk assessment that was done to 

determine that those parts pose a 

significant risk to flight safety. 

We agree to provide additional 

information to support the need to issue 

the AD as proposed. The intent of the 

AD, as explained in the NPRM (77 FR 

50411, August 21, 2012), is to prevent 

penetration of smoke or fire in areas of 

the airplane that are difficult to access 

for fire and smoke detection or 

suppression. Further, BMS 8–39 fire 

properties degrade over time and may 

result in BMS 8–39 material becoming 

a fuel source for an ignition event in 

hidden parts of the airplane. The FAA 

made this safety determination based on 

tests of aged BMS 8–39 material and inservice experience that demonstrated 

that this material may propagate a fire 

when exposed to an ignition source. We 

have therefore determined that it is 

necessary to proceed with issuing the 

final rule. 

Request To Clarify Re-Installation 

Restrictions 

Boeing and United Airlines (UAL) 

requested that we revise paragraph (i) of 

the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 

2012), which proposed to prohibit 

installation of BMS 8–39 foam seals on 

any airplane. Noting that paragraph (g) 

of the NPRM would require seal 

replacement only in certain areas of the 

airplane, the commenters requested that 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM be revised to 

explicitly identify the areas that are 

subject to re-installation restrictions. 

UPS noted that not all BMS 8–39 

foam is removed from the airplane as 

part of the rework as specified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747– 

25–3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 

2012; and Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, Revision 

1, dated September 17, 2012. Those 

service bulletins state that the foam is 

‘‘not replaced in areas where it is 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33194 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

encapsulated by a protective fire 

resistant barrier or where it is physically 

isolated from an ignition source.’’ UPS 

was concerned that BMS 8–39 foam may 

be used to replace damaged foam in 

these encapsulated areas, creating 

noncompliance with paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012). 

We agree with the request. The intent 

of paragraph (i) of this AD is to maintain 

the level of safety established by the 

corrective action of this AD, not to 

prohibit BMS 8–39 installation in 

locations excluded by this AD. We have 

revised paragraph (i) in this final rule 

accordingly. 

Request To Allow Re-Installation 

During Maintenance 

UPS requested that we revise 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 50411, 

August 21, 2012) to allow re-installation 

of items removed for access without the 

need to replace serviceable BMS 8–39 

foam seals before the proposed rework 

is done. UPS suggested adding the 

following sentence: ‘‘Parts removed and 

reinstalled to facilitate maintenance, or 

removed, repaired in accordance with 

the approved manuals, and reinstalled, 

on the same airplane are not affected by 

this rule.’’ 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concern, and agree to clarify the 

requirement. Once we have determined 

that an unsafe condition exists, an AD 

generally specifies not to allow that 

condition to be introduced into the fleet. 

Although the word ‘‘install’’ is generally 

considered to be broader than the word 

‘‘replace,’’ operators can interpret 

‘‘install’’ in this AD as meaning 

‘‘replace’’ and still meet the intent of 

paragraph (i) of this AD (‘‘Parts 

Installation Prohibition’’). By simply reinstalling a part removed during 

maintenance, the operator is not 

‘‘installing’’ a different part. Therefore, 

the AD allows operators to remove a 

part to gain access, and then re-install 

that same part for other maintenance 

activities not associated with the AD. 

Request To Supplement Service 

Information 

UPS noted that the number and 

location of affected foam insulation 

parts are not specified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 747–25– 

3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012; 

or Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 767–25–0381, Revision 1, dated 

September 17, 2012. This leaves the 

decision to remove and replace 

insulation to the mechanic. UPS added 

that those service bulletins do not 

clearly depict the affected parts, 

whereas typical AD-related service 

bulletins are very specific as to the 

location, quantity, and condition being 

addressed. UPS asserted that neither of 

these service bulletins has the expected 

level of detail necessary to prevent the 

risk of noncompliance. 

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting additional AD instructions to 

supplement the service bulletins. We 

disagree. The level of detail necessary to 

comply with the requirements of the AD 

is clear in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 

1, dated May 17, 2012; and Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 767– 

25–0381, Revision 1, dated September 

17, 2012. These service bulletins cannot 

provide specific information for every 

airplane because the location of the 

parts may not be identical on every 

airplane. Therefore, these service 

bulletins may not provide explicit 

directions regarding the location of the 

parts needed to be removed; instead the 

service bulletins provide inspection 

procedures to locate those parts. Once 

the affected parts are located, operators 

can document the parts/locations as 

necessary to ensure that compliance 

with the AD is maintained in the future. 

Because the service information is 

adequate to perform the required tasks, 

we have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify Service Information 

Paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 

50411, August 21, 2012) would prohibit 

installing a BMS 8–39 urethane foam 

seal on any airplane as of the effective 

date of the AD. UPS stated that, in many 

cases, Boeing has given unique part 

numbers to the new seals, but has not 

changed the assembly part numbers of 

the associated line replaceable units 

(LRUs). UPS added that certain 

modifications (such as the installation 

of felt on Model 767 airplanes per 

Figure 18 of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, Revision 

1, dated September 17, 2012) identified 

in the associated service bulletins do 

not bear specific part numbers and are 

unrelated to the installation of BMS 8– 

39. UPS stated that Boeing has not 

provided any revisions to the illustrated 

parts catalog (IPC) or airplane 

maintenance manual (AMM) associated 

with the service bulletin changes. 

Without such manual support, UPS 

asserted that there are no industry 

controls in place to effectively maintain 

a post-modification configuration. 

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting that we revise the NPRM (77 

FR 50411, August 21, 2012) to clarify 

the referenced procedures and parts. We 

disagree. Operators are required to both 

comply with the AD requirements and 

have controls in place to effectively 

maintain the configuration of their 

airplanes. The IPC and AMM are not 

FAA approved and are not used to 

control the configuration of the airplane. 

Operators can, however, request from 

Boeing any updated documents that 

would facilitate the maintenance of the 

AD-mandated configuration. We have 

not changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Cite Latest Service 

Information 

Paragraphs (c)(2) and (g)(2) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) 

referred to Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, dated 

August 19, 2010, as the appropriate 

source for the applicability and service 

information for Model 767 airplanes. 

UAL requested that we revise the NPRM 

to refer to the recently revised service 

bulletin: Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, Revision 

1, dated September 17, 2012. 

We agree. Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, Revision 

1, dated September 17, 2012, changes 

certain airplane groups and provides 

other administrative changes, but adds 

no work for any affected airplane. We 

have revised paragraphs (c)(2) and (g)(2) 

in this the final rule accordingly. We 

have also added new paragraph (h)(2) in 

this final rule to provide credit for 

actions done on affected airplanes in 

accordance with Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 767–25– 

0381, dated August 19, 2010. 

Request To Delay AD Issuance Pending 

Revised Service Information 

UPS reported that it has submitted 

service bulletin comments and 

questions directly to Boeing and 

requested that the FAA permit Boeing to 

address these concerns by revising the 

referenced service information before 

issuing the final rule. 

We disagree. Delaying issuance of the 

AD would negatively affect safety. If the 

commenter has a specific concern with 

the ability to comply with the AD, we 

will consider requests to approve 

specific procedures for compliance 

under the provisions of paragraph (j) of 

this AD, if sufficient data are submitted 

to substantiate that the procedures 

would provide an acceptable level of 

safety. 

Request To Consider Information 

Notices 

UAL questioned whether the AD will 

cover the changes introduced by two 

Information Notices (INs): Boeing 

Service Bulletin 777–25–0362 IN 01, 

dated February 27, 2012; and Boeing 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 33195 

Service Bulletin 777–25–0362 IN 02, 

dated August 14, 2012. 

We have not changed the final rule to 

refer to the INs, which are for 

information only. The INs do not affect 

compliance with the final rule. 

Request To Extend Compliance Time 

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested 

that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 50411, 

August 21, 2012) to extend the 

compliance time from 72 months to 88 

months to correspond to ANA’s 4C 

check interval. ANA reported that 

removal of stowage bins and other cabin 

items, typically done as part of the 4C 

check, would allow access to the areas 

affected by the NPRM. But with the 72- 

month compliance time, as proposed, 

ANA asserted that additional tasks 

would be necessary to get access to 

those areas, and would add work-hours 

and large costs for most of its fleet. 

We acknowledge ANA’s concern, but 

do not agree with the request. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for this action, we considered the 

urgency associated with the subject 

unsafe condition, the availability of 

required parts, and the practical aspect 

of accomplishing the required seal 

replacement within a period of time that 

corresponds to the normal scheduled 

maintenance for most affected operators. 

Under the provisions of paragraph (j) of 

this AD, however, we will consider 

requests to approve an extension of the 

compliance time if sufficient data are 

submitted to substantiate that the new 

compliance time would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed the AD in this regard. 

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes 

The NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 

2012) stated that deteriorated BMS 8–39 

urethane foam seals in a cargo 

compartment compromise the Halon 

retention and smoke- and fire-blocking 

capabilities of the cargo compartment. 

UPS reported that its Model 767–300F 

package freighters are not equipped 

with Class C cargo compartments and 

do not have issues with containment of 

Halon. 

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting that we revise the 

applicability to remove airplanes that do 

not have Class C cargo compartments. 

We disagree. The unsafe condition 

identified in this AD—penetration of 

smoke/fire in areas of the airplane that 

are difficult to access for fire/smoke 

detection or suppression—is not limited 

to airplanes equipped with Halon fire 

suppression. In addition, BMS 8–39 fire 

retardant properties, which deteriorate 

over time, can provide a fuel source for 

an ignition event in hidden areas of the 

airplane. We have therefore determined 

that UPS’s package freighters are subject 

to the identified unsafe condition. We 

have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Inspection 

Requirement 

Paragraph (g)(1) in the NPRM (77 FR 

50411, August 21, 2012) would require 

replacement of the BMS 8–39 urethane 

foam seals with BMS 8–371 insulation 

foam or BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber 

seals, in accordance with Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 747–25– 

3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012. 

Japan Airlines (JAL) noted that these 

actions include removal of a certain 

foam pad, as specified in Figure 16, 

View 1, of that service bulletin. JAL 

reported that the cargo light part 

number BR7203–701 does not contain 

any foam, and no foam was found 

installed around the cargo light. JAL 

concluded that it cannot identify the 

existence of the foam pad and therefore 

requested that we revise the NPRM to 

specify that this removal step would 

apply only if the foam pad exists. 

We agree to provide clarification on 

this issue. We have determined that 

some sort of padding should exist near 

the cargo light. If the pad has been 

removed, however, the operator can 

request approval of an alternative 

method of compliance for appropriate 

procedures in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD. 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously— 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 

50411, August 21, 2012) for correcting 

the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 50411, 

August 21, 2012). 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 694 

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 

Replacement—165 Model 747 airplanes.Up to 432 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $36,720.

Up to $6,162 .......... Up to $42,882 ........ Up to $7,075,530. 

Replacement—399 Model 767 airplanes.Up to 72 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $6,120.

Up to $3,967 .......... Up to $10,087 ........ Up to $4,024,713. 

Replacement—130 Model 777 airplanes.16 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$1,360.

$1,038 .................... $2,398 .................... $311,740. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33196 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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): 

2013–11–04 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–17464; Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0856; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–093–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective July 9, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

airplanes, certificated in any category, 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and 

(c)(3) of this AD. 

(1) Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B 

SUD, 747–200B, 747–200F, 747–300, 747– 

400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes, as identified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–25– 

3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012. 

(2) Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes, as identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

767–25–0381, Revision 1, dated September 

17, 2012. 

(3) Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and 

–300ER series airplanes, as identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

777–25–0362, dated August 19, 2010. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 25, Equipment/furnishings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

burned Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 

8–39 urethane foam, and a report from the 

airplane manufacturer indicating that 

airplanes were assembled, throughout 

various areas of the airplane (including flight 

deck and cargo compartments), with seals 

made of BMS 8–39 urethane foam, a material 

with fire-retardant properties that deteriorate 

with age. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

the failure of urethane seals to maintain 

sufficient Halon concentrations in the cargo 

compartments to extinguish or contain fire or 

smoke, and to prevent penetration of fire or 

smoke in areas of the airplane that are 

difficult to access for fire and smoke 

detection or suppression. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) BMS 8–39 Urethane Foam Seal 

Replacements 

Within 72 months after the effective date 

of this AD, do the actions specified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, 

as applicable. 

(1) For Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747– 

100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200F, 747–300, 

747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 

747SP series airplanes: Replace the BMS 8– 

39 urethane foam seals (including doing a 

general visual inspection of the airplane 

sidewalls for air baffles, and of the BMS 8– 

39 urethane foam for penetrations (e.g., wire 

penetrations)) with BMS 8–371 insulation 

foam or BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber seals, 

as applicable, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions and Appendix 

A, as applicable, of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 1, 

dated May 17, 2012. 

(2) For Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes: Perform a general 

visual inspection for the presence of BMS 8– 

39 urethane foam, cover the BMS 8–39 foam 

with cargo liner joint sealing tape in certain 

areas, replace certain BMS 8–39 foam pads 

with Nomex felt in certain areas, and replace 

BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals with BMS 8– 

371 insulation foam or BMS 1–68 silicone 

foam rubber seals, as applicable, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions and Appendix A, as applicable, 

of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

767–25–0381, Revision 1, dated September 

17, 2012. 

(3) For Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and 

–300ER series airplanes: Replace BMS 8–39 

urethane foam seals with BMS 1–68 silicone 

foam rubber seals in the forward and aft 

cargo compartments of the airplane, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 777–25–0362, dated August 

19, 2010. 

(h) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) For Groups 4 and 5 airplanes, as 

identified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 1, 

dated May 17, 2012: This paragraph provides 

credit for the actions required by paragraph 

(g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were done 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

747–25–3381, dated August 19, 2010. 

(2) For Model 767 airplanes: This 

paragraph provides credit for the actions 

required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if 

those actions were done before the effective 

date of this AD using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, 

dated August 19, 2010. 

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition 

As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install a BMS 8–39 urethane 

foam seal in any location identified in 

paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3), as 

applicable, of this AD. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Eric M. Brown, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems 

Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917– 

6476; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

Eric.M.Brown@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 33197 

(i) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 1, dated May 

17, 2012. 

(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 767–25–0381, Revision 1, dated 

September 17, 2012. 

(iii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 777–25–0362, dated August 19, 

2010. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12717 Filed 6–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0455; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–CE–013–AD; Amendment 

39–17461; AD 2013–11–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Iniziative 

Industriali Italiane S.p.A. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Iniziative Industriali Italiane S.p.A. 

Models Sky Arrow 650 TC, Sky Arrow 

650 TCN, Sky Arrow 650TCS, and Sky 

Arrow 650TCNS airplanes. This AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as improper installation of the 

spherical bearing on the central hinge 

lever and a crack on the weld length of 

the horizontal tail/elevator plane hinge 

assembly. We are issuing this AD to 

require actions to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 19, 

2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of June 19, 2013. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by July 19, 2013. 

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 W12–140, 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 AD, contact Magnaghi Aeronautica 

S.p.A., Via G. Ferraris, 76, 80142 

Napoli, Italy; telephone: + 39 081 5977 

225; fax: + 39 081 5977 226; email: 

dtedesco@magnaghiaeronautica.it; 

Internet: www.magnaghiaeronautica.it. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call (816) 329– 

4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.

gov; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The 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: 

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 

329–4090; email: mike.kiesov@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued AD No. 2013– 

0073–E, dated March 21, 2013 (referred 

to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

During an inspection on elevator/stabilizer 

hinges, improper installation of the spherical 

bearing part number (P/N) SKF GE–10 on the 

central hinge lever and a crack on the weld 

length of the horizontal tail/elevator plane 

hinge assembly have been reported. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to the loss of the main 

elevator control. 

To address this potential unsafe condition, 

Magnaghi Aeronautica issued Service 

Bulletin (SB–C) n. SB–005–2013–SKY 

ARROW to inspect the affected areas of the 

pitch flight control system. 

For the reasons described above, this AD 

requires inspection of the spherical bearing 

and the horizontal tail/elevator plane hinge 

assembly to detect any crack, signs of 

corrosion or improper installation, and 

accomplishment of the applicable corrective 

actions. 

The MCAI also requires sending a 

detailed report of any crack, signs of 

corrosion, or improper installation 

found during the required inspections to 

Magnaghi Aeronautica S.p.A.; 

requesting an FAA-approved repair 

scheme; and incorporating the repair . 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Magnaghi Aeronautica SpA has 

issued Service Bulletin SB–C n. SB– 

005–2013–SKY ARROW, Issue 1, dated 

March 13, 2013. The actions described 

in this service information are intended 

to correct the unsafe condition 

identified in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with this State of 

Design Authority, they have notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are issuing this 

AD because we evaluated all 

information provided by the State of 

Design Authority and determined the 

unsafe condition exists and is likely to 

exist or develop on other products of the 

same type design. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES