48098 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Flame propagation is defined as the spread of a 

flame in a combustible environment outward from 

the point at which the combustion started. 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19299 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 25, 121, and 129 

[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0500; Notice No. 

14–07] 

RIN 2120–AK30 

Fuel Tank Vent Fire Protection 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action would amend 

certain airworthiness regulations for 

transport category airplanes to require 

fuel tank designs that prevent a fuel 

tank explosion caused by flame 

propagation through the fuel tank vents 

from external fires. This action would 

add a new requirement for fuel tank 

vent fire protection and would increase 

the time available for passenger 

evacuation and emergency response. 

This proposed amendment would apply 

to applications for new type certificates 

and certain applications for amended or 

supplemental type certificates. It would 

also require certain airplanes produced 

in the future and operated by air carriers 

to meet the new standards. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

November 13, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2014–0500 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Mike Dostert, Propulsion 

and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM– 

112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 

Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2132; facsimile 

(425) 227–1149; email Mike.Dostert@

faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Sean Howe, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, ANM–7, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2591; 

facsimile (425) 227–1007; email 

Sean.Howe@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for this Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. 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. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, ‘‘General Requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

and minimum standards for the design 

and performance of aircraft that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority. It 

prescribes new safety standards for the 

design and operation of transport 

category airplanes. 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

A. General 

This proposed rule would prevent 

fuel tank explosions caused by ignition 

(from potential external ignition 

sources) of fuel vapor present in or 

exiting through the fuel tank vent 

outlets. Ignition sources may include, 

but are not limited to, ground handling 

equipment, fuel fires that result from 

refueling spills, or ground fire that may 

be present following a survivable crash 

landing in which the fuel tank and the 

vent system remain intact. The FAA has 

determined that a means to prevent 

propagation of flame 1 from external 

sources into the tank through the fuel 

tank vents, such as flame arrestors or a 

means of inerting the fuel tanks, could 

be used to prevent or delay fuel tank 

explosions following certain accidents. 

This prevention or delay would provide 

time for the safe evacuation of 

passengers from the airplane. 

This proposed rule would apply to 

applications for new type certificates 

and applications for amended or 

supplemental type certificates on 

significant product level change projects 

in which Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) 25.975, Fuel tank 

vents and carburetor vapor vents, is 

applicable to a changed area. We are 

also proposing a new operating 

requirement applicable to newly 

produced airplanes that are issued an 

original airworthiness certificate after a 

specified date, per 14 CFR part 121, 

Operating Requirements: Domestic, 

Flag, and Supplemental Operations, and 

14 CFR part 129, Operations: Foreign 

Air Carriers and Foreign Operators of 

U.S.-Registered Aircraft Engaged in 

Common Carriage. We do not propose 

to require retrofit of the existing fleet. 

Currently, there is not an advisory 

circular (AC) that describes compliance 

means for protection of fuel tank vents 

from external ignition sources. We have 

provided compliance means 

information to applicants for type 

certificates through project-specific 

issue papers. These issue papers 

describe how to demonstrate that flame 

will not progress through the fuel tank 

vents into the fuel tank. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this proposal, we are also publishing for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 48099 

2Special Aviation Fire and Explosion Reduction 

(SAFER) Advisory Committee final report, volume 

1, FAA/AFS–80–4 dated June 26, 1973, through 

June 26, 1980. 

3Surge tank explosion suppression systems were 

installed on some Boeing airplanes to prevent a 

lightning strike from igniting fuel vapor in the fuel 

tank vent system. These systems used light sensors 

that activated the discharge of fire suppression 

agent into the fuel tank vent surge tank to prevent 

the fire from traveling through the vents into the 

airplane fuel tanks. 

4SAFER Report, page 49, Figure 3. 

5Hickey, John. Letter to Craig Bolt. 14 June 2005. 

6On May 11, 1990, a Philippine Airlines 737–300 

was destroyed by a fuel tank explosion on the apron 

at Manila Ninoy Aquino International Airport. 

7AD 99–03–04 BOEING: Amendment 39–11018; 

Docket 98–NM–50–AD; effective March 9, 1999. 

comment an associated draft AC 

25.975–X that will provide applicants 

with one acceptable means of 

compliance for preventing propagation 

of flames through the fuel tank vents. 

B. Total Costs and Benefits of This 

Proposed Rule 

The FAA finds the proposed rule to 

be cost-beneficial because the costs of 

the rule are low enough that the 

expected benefits of preventing just two 

fatalities would outweigh the expected 

costs ($4.9 million in present value 

benefits versus $4.4 million in present 

value costs). If this action is not taken, 

a hazard would continue to exist even 

though effective and low-cost means are 

available to minimize or eliminate it. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Fires outside of the airplane fuel tanks 

can be caused by events such as fuel 

spilled during refueling, fuel and oil 

spillage following survivable accidents 

from engines that separate from the 

airplane, or leaking airplane fuel tanks. 

In some cases, external fires have 

ignited fuel vapors that exit the fuel 

tank vents, resulting in flames traveling 

through the vent lines into the fuel tank, 

causing fuel tank explosions. These 

explosions have caused fatalities to 

passengers and have prevented 

emergency personnel from assisting 

survivors. 

During an industry review of potential 

post-crash survivability, the Special 

Aviation Fire and Explosion Reduction 

(SAFER) Advisory Committee 2

determined that four fuel tank 

explosions resulting from post-crash 

fires could have been avoided if flame 

arrestors or surge tank explosion 

suppression systems 3 had been 

installed in the airplane fuel tank 

vents 4. The SAFER committee 

examined methods of preventing fuel 

tank explosions following impact 

survivable accidents. Options included 

controlling the fuel tank flammability 

using nitrogen inerting systems, using 

fire suppression systems, and 

installation of flame arrestors. 

The SAFER committee determined 

the most practical means of preventing 

post-crash fuel tank explosions was the 

use of flame arrestors. Flame arrestors or 

suppression systems delay propagation 

of ground fires into the fuel tank and the 

subsequent explosions, providing 

additional time for the safe evacuation 

of passengers. Flame arrestors stop the 

flame from traveling through the fuel 

tank vents by quenching the flame. 

Flame arrestors are typically made of 

numerous small stainless steel passages 

that remove heat from the flame so it 

dies out before passing through the vent. 

Flame arrestors for a typical transport 

airplane range in weight from 2 to 4 

pounds each. 

The current airworthiness standards 

related to fuel system explosion 

prevention in 14 CFR 25.981 include 

requirements to prevent ignition inside 

the fuel tanks caused by system failures 

or external heating of the fuel tank 

walls. The fuel tank venting standards 

also include requirements to ensure fuel 

tank structural integrity following 

failures of the refueling system that 

could result in overfilling of the fuel 

tanks or clogging of the vents due to ice. 

Additionally, § 25.954, Fuel system 

lightning protection, requires fuel tank 

vents be designed and arranged to 

prevent the ignition of fuel vapor within 

the system by lightning strikes. 

B. History 

In 1995, based on the SAFER 

Committee report noted above, the FAA 

issued the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ‘‘Fuel 

System Vent Fire Protection,’’ (60 FR 

6632), dated February 2, 1995. This 

notice proposed a requirement for fuel 

tank vent fire protection in new type 

design transport airplanes and retrofit of 

the existing fleet of transport category 

airplanes through an amendment of 

operating rules. Comments received in 

response to the notice questioned the 

accuracy of the FAA’s economic 

analysis related to the proposed retrofit 

requirement. Comments also indicated 

that additional guidance, in the form of 

an AC, should be developed to provide 

an acceptable means to qualify flame 

arrestors to meet the proposed 

requirement. 

To address these issues, the FAA 

obtained additional cost information 

from component suppliers and 

developed an AC that included means 

of compliance. In 2001, the FAA tasked 

the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) to review the draft 

final rule, including the FAA’s proposed 

disposition of public comments, and to 

review the draft AC. Due to the ARAC 

tasking, on August 23, 2002 the FAA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register of withdrawal of the ‘‘Fuel 

System Vent Protection’’ NPRM 

published in 1995. As a result of 

industry resource issues and FAA 

rulemaking prioritization activities, no 

work was done on these ARAC taskings. 

The FAA published a withdrawal of the 

tasks on June 21, 2004. 

As a result of limited ARAC 

resources, the FAA developed a strategy 

for a number of rulemaking projects that 

had been tasked to ARAC and issued a 

letter 5 dated June 14, 2005, to the head 

of the Transport Airplane and Engine 

Issues Group describing our intent to 

use the existing 14 CFR 21.21 (finding 

an ‘‘unsafe design feature’’) to address 

the need for flame arrestors in the fuel 

tank vents. Since 2005, this has resulted 

in new type certificated airplanes 

having flame arrestors. 

Prior to issuance of the letter in 2005, 

following industry recommendations, 

many manufacturers voluntarily 

introduced flame arrestors into their 

new type designs. Currently, most new 

type designs and most newly produced 

transport category airplanes incorporate 

flame arrestors in the fuel tank vents. 

Additionally, several applicants have 

installed fuel tanks in the airplane 

fuselage that have vents located in areas 

prone to lightning strikes (defined as 

zone 2), such that flame arrestors were 

provided to prevent flame propagation 

into the fuel tanks to comply with 

§ 25.954. 

However, some models of newly 

manufactured airplanes produced under 

older type certificates, including 

business jets and smaller transport 

category airplanes, do not incorporate a 

means to prevent flame propagation 

through the fuel vent lines to the fuel 

tanks. Airplanes in 14 CFR part 121 

operation that do not have such a means 

include older models like the DC–9, 

MD–80, as well as all past and currently 

produced DHC–8 turboprops, and 

Canadair Regional Jets. 

As a result of the review of several 

fuel tank explosions on older designs, 

including a Philippine Airlines Boeing 

737,6 the FAA issued an airworthiness 

directive (AD) for Boeing Model 737 

airplanes mandating incorporation of 

flame arrestors.7 Early models of the 737 

did not have means to prevent 

propagation of a flame from the fuel 

tank vent outlet into the fuel tanks. The 

Philippine explosion occurred while the 

airplane was parked at the gate. The 

ignition source that caused the 

explosion could not be determined. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48100 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8AD 59–20–02 LOCKHEED: Effective October 15, 

1959, for items (1) and (2) and December 1, 1959, 

for item (3). 

9AD 67–23–02 BOEING: Amendment 39–462. 

Effective September 10, 1967. 

10AD 92–16–14 BEECH: Amendment 39–8323; 

Docket No. 92–NM–95–AD; effective September 1, 

1992. 

11AD 2011–15–02 LOCKHEED: Amendment 39– 

16749; Docket No., FAA–2010–1305; effective 

August 19, 2011. 

12Bombardier Q400 (Dash 8) and Canadair 

Regional Jets. 

13 DOT/FAA/AR–99/57, Fuselage Burnthrough 

Protection for Increased Postcrash Occupant 

Survivability: Safety Benefit Analysis Based on Past 

Accidents, September 1999. 

14 DOT/FAA/AR–09/18, Determination of 

Evacuation and Firefighting Times Based on an 

Analysis of Aircraft Accident Fire Survivability 

Data, May 2009. 

15 Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

However, external ignition sources such 

as ground handling equipment or hot 

surfaces on lighting located near the 

vent outlet were evaluated as the 

possible source of the ignition. 

In addition to the 737 AD, we have 

issued other ADs to either require flame 

arrestors or verify their functionality on 

the Lockheed Model 1649A piston 

airplane,8 Boeing Models 707 and 720,9

the Beech Model 400A,10 and the 

Lockheed Model 382.11

Since 2005, the FAA has also 

addressed the possibility of fuel tank 

ignition resulting from post-crash fire 

propagation through fuel vent lines with 

issue papers applied to specific 

certification projects. 

However, the lack of a specific part 25 

regulation has resulted in some 

manufacturers completing initial 

airplane designs and applying for a U.S. 

type certificate without considering the 

need to mitigate the risk of flame 

propagation through fuel vent lines. 

Some newly manufactured airplanes 

introduced into the U.S. fleet do not 

have flame arrestors in the fuel tank 

vents.12

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. General 

This proposal would establish a 

minimum time period for preventing a 

fuel tank explosion caused by flame 

propagation through the fuel tank vents 

of 2 minutes and 30 seconds, measured 

from the time a flame first impinges on 

any fuel tank vent. This capability 

would allow time to evacuate 

passengers and crew to a safe distance 

from the airplane and for emergency 

response to begin. The minimum 

performance standard in this proposal is 

based on a balance between the 

available technology, practicality 

considerations, and providing a 

satisfactory passenger evacuation safety 

standard. 

The proposed regulatory text is 

intended to prevent, or at least delay, 

fuel tank explosions or fires caused by 

external fires that ignite fuel or vapor in 

the fuel tank. External fires may be 

caused by sources such as post-crash 

ground fires, fires resulting from fuel 

leakage during refueling, and ignition of 

fuel exiting the fuel vents. The proposal 

requires consideration of flames in the 

fuel tank vent outlets including 

propagation through the vent line, as 

well as ignition sources created by 

damage to the vent system caused by the 

external fire, such as burn-through of 

fuel tank vent system components or 

heating of the vent system components. 

To limit propagation of external fires 

through the vent system, it is necessary 

to design a flame arrestor, a flame 

suppression device, or other system to 

prevent flame penetration and 

propagation through the airplane fuel 

tank vents. The minimum time period 

should be no less than the time required 

to evacuate the airplane. The FAA has 

previously established a performance 

standard that, under specified 

conditions, the airplane must be capable 

of being evacuated within 90 seconds 

(§ 25.803, Emergency evacuation). The 

conditions under which the airplane is 

evacuated assume availability of a 

minimum number of exits and all 

passengers are uninjured and physically 

capable of departing the airplane. This 

is not always the case. 

In addition to time for evacuation of 

passengers, we have also established 

minimum standards for penetration of a 

fuel fire through the airplane fuselage to 

allow emergency crews time to arrive at 

an accident and to establish control of 

a fire (§ 25.856, Thermal/Acoustic 

insulation materials). Analysis of past 

accidents showed the greatest benefits 

when a minimum of 5 minutes is 

provided. This time includes 1 minute 

for a fire to penetrate the fuselage skin 

and an additional 4 minutes for the fire 

to burn through the insulation. The time 

of 5 minutes for penetration of a postcrash ground fire into the fuselage was 

based on research into studies of past 

accidents.13 14 As part of a project 

commissioned by the FAA, data have 

been gathered on the relative proportion 

of accidents that involve ground pooled 

fuel fires and statistical data on the 

following: 

• Time to initiate an evacuation; 

• Time to complete an evacuation; 

• Time to arrival of fire-fighters; and 

• Time for fire-fighters to establish 

control in a ground pool fire accident. 

The data were extracted from accident 

reports and other information published 

by investigating and airworthiness 

authorities using the Cabin Safety 

Research Technical Group aircraft 

accident database. 

Current technology flame arrestors 

installed in the transport fleet have been 

designed to have a capability to prevent 

flame propagation into the fuel tanks for 

up to 2 minutes and 30 seconds after 

flame enters the fuel tank vent and 

contacts the face of the flame arrestor. 

The FAA is proposing a minimum 

standard of 2 minutes and 30 seconds. 

This time is greater than the 90 second 

evacuation time noted above and allows 

additional time for passengers to exit 

from the crash scene. No adverse service 

experience has occurred on airplanes 

equipped with flame arrestors that 

provide this amount of time. While this 

time is less than the 5 minute test 

standard required by § 25.856 for a 

ground fire to penetrate into the 

fuselage, the FAA has determined 

providing fuel tank vent protection in 

excess of 2 minutes and 30 seconds 

would not be practical. Comments 

received to the notice issued in 1995 

indicated flame arrestors that meet a 5 

minute standard would need to be 

significantly larger, weigh more, and 

would introduce significant pressure 

loss in the fuel system vent line, 

resulting in the need to increase the size 

of the vent line to meet airplane 

refueling performance requirements. 

B. Potential for Blockage of Vents 

During the approval process for the 

existing compliance means that use 

flame arrestors in the vent lines, several 

applicants expressed concerns that 

requiring flame arrestors may reduce the 

level of safety due to restrictions being 

introduced into the vents. The FAA 

acknowledges that introducing flame 

arrestors in the fuel tank vents may 

introduce the potential for clogging of 

the vent lines from ice and debris. This 

could result in adverse consequences 

like more severe tank pressures during 

fueling/over-fueling, greater differential 

pressures on the tank skins during 

emergency descent or defueling, 

reduced fuel jettison capability, and an 

increased risk of vent system blockage. 

To address these design 

considerations, applicants have 

included positive and negative pressure 

relief provisions in their vent system 

designs. This has afforded an excellent 

safety record. Service experience of 

thousands of airplanes in the current 

fleet equipped with flame arrestors 

indicates that each of these concerns 

(and other such concerns not listed 

above) can be safely mitigated with 

proper design and certification of the 

fuel tank vent fire protection. Proposed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 48101 

AC 25.975–X would provide the 

guidance necessary to address these 

issues. 

C. Revise ‘‘Fuel Tank Vents and 

Carburetor Vapor Vents’’ (§ 25.975) 

Section 25.975 currently prescribes 

standards for fuel tank vents but does 

not contain a standard for protecting the 

fuel tanks from external flame 

propagating into the tank. We propose 

to add a new paragraph, § 25.975(a)(7), 

to establish a requirement for a means 

to prevent the propagation of flames, for 

a limited time, from outside the fuel 

tank through the fuel tank vents that 

could cause a fuel tank explosion. 

Means of compliance available today 

include incorporation of flame arrestors 

in the fuel system vent lines. Other 

means that might be available in the 

future include full time fuel tank 

inerting systems that prevent fuel tank 

explosions due to post-crash or other 

external fires. 

We considered alternative technical 

solutions, such as mandating nitrogen 

inerting systems that would prevent a 

fuel tank explosions caused by external 

fires by eliminating fuel tank 

flammability. Current fuel tank 

flammability limits in § 25.981 have 

resulted in the use of nitrogen inerting 

systems in some or all fuel tanks. 

However, the fuel tanks become 

flammable during certain portions of 

airplane operations such as during fuel 

tank refueling and times when the 

inerting system cannot produce enough 

nitrogen to inert the fuel tanks. During 

these times, the tanks continue to be 

vulnerable to explosion from flame 

propagation through fuel system vent 

lines. The cost to incorporate full-time 

nitrogen inerting systems in all fuel 

tanks would be excessive. 

Another alternative we considered 

was to continue using certification 

project-specific issue papers to address 

fuel tank vent fire protection. However, 

this alternative does not allow public 

review and comment and does not 

result in broad industry awareness of 

the need to incorporate vent system 

protection into new designs early in the 

airplane design process. In addition, 

this method is more costly and time 

consuming for both the FAA and 

applicants due to the need to process an 

issue paper identifying specific 

requirements for each project. Some 

applicants have objected to this 

approach, and it has proven more 

difficult to apply in a standardized 

manner. 

After considering these alternatives, 

we have concluded that the most 

practical and cost effective method to 

address this safety issue is the 

incorporation of flame arrestors in the 

fuel system vent lines (as recommended 

in the SAFER committee report). 

D. Newly Produced Airplanes 

Parts 121 and 129 prescribe operating 

requirements for air carriers, including 

requirements for the airworthiness of 

each airplane. Part 121 applies to 

domestic operators and, for 

airworthiness requirements, part 129 

applies to foreign operators operating 

U.S.-registered airplanes. We propose to 

add a new operating requirement that 

would apply to newly manufactured 

airplanes entering service 2 years after 

the effective date of this proposed 

regulation. This compliance time is 

based on the estimated time needed to 

design and develop a flame arrestor 

installation for existing airplanes. Flame 

arrestor technology is currently 

available, and adaptation of this 

technology to currently produced 

airplanes, certifying the design and 

incorporation of the design in 

production, should be achievable within 

the 2-year compliance time. 

While this proposal does not require 

manufacturers of existing type designs 

to develop design features meeting the 

requirements, we anticipate operators of 

the affected airplane models will enter 

into business agreements with 

manufacturers to provide compliant 

designs that meet the proposed 

operating regulations. Newly 

manufactured airplanes that enter 

service typically have a minimum 

operating life of 20 years in passenger 

service. Therefore, the safety benefits of 

incorporating flame arrestors would be 

greatest in newly produced airplanes 

entering service. 

We are not proposing a requirement to 

retrofit airplanes in the current fleet. 

This decision was based on the 

determination that many of the older 

airplane models that do not have flame 

arrestors are being retired. The cost to 

retrofit these airplanes for the safety 

improvement is not in the public 

interest. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

state, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of the proposed rule. 

We suggest readers seeking greater 

detail read the full regulatory 

evaluation, a copy of which we have 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. 

These analyses are summarized 

below. 

Total Costs and Benefits of This 

Proposed Rule 

The FAA finds the proposed rule to 

be cost-beneficial because the costs of 

the rule are low enough that the 

expected benefits of preventing just two 

fatalities would outweigh the expected 

costs ($4.9 million in present value 

benefits versus $4.4 million in present 

value costs). If this action is not taken, 

a hazard would continue to exist even 

though effective and low-cost means are 

available to minimize or eliminate it. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

Manufacturers of newly certified part 

25 airplanes and U.S. operators of these 

airplanes are affected by the rule as a 

result of its applicability to new 

certification part 25 airplanes. 

Manufacturers and operators of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48102 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15 Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

16We do not estimate costs for the analogous part 

129 requirement as these costs are directly incurred 

by foreign operators. 

currently produced part 25 airplanes 

(production cut-in) are affected by the 

rule as a result of its applicability to 

airplanes engaged in part 121 or 129 

operations produced two years or more 

after the effective date of this rule. 

Principal Assumptions and Sources of 

Information 

• Discount rate is 7 percent (Office of 

Management & Budget, Circular A–94, 

‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs,’’ October 29, 1992, p. 8). 

• Value of statistical life (VSL) begins 

at $9.1 million in 2012 and increases 

thereafter by an annual growth factor of 

1.0107. Memorandum: Guidance on 

Treatment of the Economic Value of a 

Statistical Life in Department Analyses. 

[February 2013]. United States, Office of 

the Secretary of Transportation. 

• For small part 25 manufacturers: 

Two U.S. airplane certifications in next 

10-year period, twenty-one annual U.S. 

deliveries per U.S. certification; three 

foreign airplane certifications in next 

10-year period, eleven annual U.S. 

deliveries per foreign certification, 15- 

year airplane production run; 30-year 

retirement age. Internal FAA study. 

• Current airplane models that could 

be affected by production cut-in 

requirement (Bombardier Dash 8, CJ– 

700, and CJ–900): FAA 2013 Fleet 

Forecast, Fleet Forecast Sheet, ‘‘FAA 

U.S. Airlines 2013–2013 1–18–2103,’’ 

‘‘Totals & FAA Tables.’’ 

• The period of analysis for new 

certifications is 45 years to account for 

a complete product life cycle 

determined by a 15-year production 

period and a 30-year service period. 

• Certification cost estimates for part 

25 airplanes—Survey of small U.S. part 

25 airplane manufacturers. 

• Maintenance cost per airplane 

(every four years) for Bombardier CJ– 

700/CJ–900 regional jets (subject to 

production cut-in)—$240. This estimate 

is much lower than the U.S. estimate 

because it is for passenger airplane 

models, while the U.S. estimate is for 

business jet models. Since business jets 

are more prone to sit for extended 

periods of time, their flame arrestors can 

more easily be clogged by ice, mud 

daubers, or other debris, thus requiring 

more frequent and longer maintenance. 

• Minimal fuel costs as flame 

arrestors weigh between 2 and 4 pounds 

each. 

Costs of This Proposed Rule 

The costs of the proposed rule are 

engineering, production, and 

maintenance compliance costs for 

newly certificated part 25 airplanes and 

for new production of currentlyproduced part 25 airplanes used in part 

121 operations (production cut-in). We 

first estimate compliances costs for new 

certifications and then for the 

production cut-in. 

Compliance Costs of New Certification 

Airplanes to Manufacturers and 

Operators 

For newly certificated airplanes, 

compliance costs consist of engineering 

and production costs of U.S. 

manufactured airplanes delivered to 

U.S. operators and maintenance costs of 

both U.S. and foreign airplanes 

delivered to U.S. operators. U.S. part 25 

manufacturers directly incur the 

engineering and production costs while 

U.S. operators directly incur the 

maintenance costs. Engineering and 

production costs incurred by foreign 

manufacturers are not included in the 

costs of compliance, as costs directly 

attributable to foreign entities are not 

included in the cost and benefit analysis 

of proposed U.S. regulations. 

To calculate the cost of new U.S. 

certifications, we assume that all new 

certifications will be approved one year 

after the effective date of the rule, with 

production beginning one year later. 

Using an airplane life cycle model, we 

estimate the economic impact for two 

new certificates, production of 21 

airplanes/certificates/year, production 

runs of 15 years, and an airplane 

retirement age of 30 years. Compliance 

costs per year are calculated over an 

airplane life cycle of 45 years. 

Industry cost estimates were solicited 

from small part 25 manufacturers 

because large airplane manufacturers 

(Boeing and Airbus) are already 

compliant with the proposed rule. 

These cost estimates are shown in the 

table below. 

INDUSTRY COST ESTIMATES USING FLAME ARRESTORS TO COMPLY WITH PROPOSED RULE

Cost category Cost Notes 

Nonrecurring Engineering Costs ..................................................................................... $142,000 per model. 

Production Costs (Hardware & Installation) ................................................................... 3,000 per airplane (two flame arrestors @$1,500 

each). 

Maintenance Costs (U.S. manufacturers) ...................................................................... 415 per airplane annually. 

Maintenance Costs (Bombardier) ................................................................................... 240 per airplane every 4 years. 

The industry cost estimates consist of 

nonrecurring (one-time) engineering 

costs, production costs for two flame 

arrestors per airplane (one per fuel 

tank), and maintenance costs per 

airplane per year. (The Bombardier 

maintenance cost estimate is used for 

estimating production cut-in costs of 

compliance.) Incorporating the industry 

cost estimates into the airplane life 

cycle model, we find total costs for new 

certification airplanes to be $16.2 

million with present value of $4.2 

million. $2.2 million of these costs 

(present value $1.2 million) are directly 

incurred by U.S. manufacturers and 

$14.0 million (present value $2.1 

million) are directly incurred by U.S. 

operators.15

Compliance Costs of Production Cut-In 

In addition to the requirement 

applying to new certifications, the 

proposed rule would also require a 

production cut-in for currently 

produced part 25 airplanes used in part 

121 operations.16 To calculate this cost, 

we first note that the only currently 

produced and U.S. operated airplane 

models not already in compliance are 

the Bombardier Dash 8 turboprops and 

Bombardier CJ–700/CJ–900 regional jets. 

The final rule would apply to these 

Bombardier models produced beginning 

in 2018. Since the FAA forecasts no 

Dash 8 deliveries to U.S. airline 

operators after 2017, we expect no Dash 

8 compliance cost for these operators. 

The FAA does forecast the delivery of 

338 CRJ–700 and 161 CRJ–900 model 

airplanes to U.S. airline operators over 

the period 2018–2033. The engineering 

and production compliance costs for 

these airplanes are not included in our 

cost estimates because, as noted above, 

costs directly incurred by foreign 

entities are not included in the cost and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 48103 

benefit analysis of proposed U.S. 

regulations. Accordingly, for these 

airplanes we assess the impact on U.S. 

operators only, using Bombardier’s 

maintenance cost estimate of $240 every 

four years. Allocating this cost as $60 

annually and assuming a production 

period of 16 years, we calculate the 

maintenance costs for these airplanes 

from the first year of service to the 

retirement year of the last airplanes 

produced, using a procedure analogous 

to that used for new certification 

airplanes. We find these costs to 

operators to be $898,200 with present 

value $178,439. 

Production cut-in costs of $898,200 

(present value $178,439) added to new 

certification airplane costs of $16.2 

million (present value $4.2 million) 

yield total rule costs of $17.1 million 

(present value $4.4 million). 

Benefits of This Proposed Rule 

Notwithstanding the absence of postcrash fuel tank explosions in recent 

years and lacking other sufficient bases 

upon which to estimate future risks, the 

merits of the proposed rule can be 

assessed by considering the number of 

fatalities that would need to be 

prevented to offset the costs of the rule. 

We estimate the breakeven benefits of 

the rule by estimating the number of 

averted fatalities necessary to offset the 

$4.4 million present value costs of the 

rule. We find that just two averted 

fatalities would offset these estimated 

costs. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Agencies 

must perform a review to determine 

whether a rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the agency 

determines that it will, the agency must 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

as described in the RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

All small U.S. manufacturers affected 

by this rule are wholly owned 

subsidiaries of large companies, who 

have more than 1,500 employees (the 

small business criterion for aircraft 

manufacturing) and, therefore, are not 

classified as small entities by the Small 

Business Administration. Part 121 

operators would be directly affected by 

the average $415 annual maintenance 

cost per airplane. These costs are 

minimal, especially compared to the 

high cost of new part 25 airplanes. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Public Law 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public 

Law 103–465), prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

This proposed rule would not create 

an unnecessary obstacle to foreign 

commerce as foreign and domestic 

manufacturers are equally affected and 

its effect on part 121 operators would be 

domestic only. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. Environmental 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48104 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by: 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 1 

above. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited 

parts, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 129 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, and 44704. 

■ 2. Amend § 25.975 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6), and adding 

a new paragraph (a)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 25.975 Fuel tank vents and carburetor 

vapor vents. 

(a) * * * 

(5) There may be no point in any vent 

line where moisture can accumulate 

with the airplane in the ground attitude 

or the level flight attitude, unless 

drainage is provided; 

(6) No vent or drainage provision may 

end at any point— 

(i) Where the discharge of fuel from 

the vent outlet would constitute a fire 

hazard; or 

(ii) From which fumes could enter 

personnel compartments; and 

(7) Each fuel tank system must be 

designed to prevent explosions caused 

by propagation of flames from outside 

the tank through the fuel tank vents into 

fuel tank vapor spaces for a minimum 

of 2 minutes and 30 seconds of 

continuous exposure to flame 

impingement on any fuel tank vent. 

* * * * * 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 46105. 

■ 4. Add § 121.1119 to subpart AA to 

read as follows: 

§ 121.1119 Fuel tank vent explosion 

protection. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to transport category, turbine-powered 

airplanes with a type certificate issued 

after January 1, 1958, that, as a result of 

original type certification or later 

increase in capacity, have: 

(1) A maximum type-certificated 

passenger capacity of 30 or more, or 

(2) A maximum payload capacity of 

7,500 pounds or more. 

(b) New production airplanes. No 

certificate holder may operate an 

airplane for which the State of 

Manufacture issued the original 

certificate of airworthiness or export 

airworthiness approval after [insert date 

2 years after effective date of rule] 

unless fuel tank vent system explosion 

prevention means meeting the 

requirements of § 25.975 of this chapter, 

are installed and operational. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 48105 

PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN 

AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN 

OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED 

AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON 

CARRIAGE 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 129 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113, 40119, 41301, 

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, 

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901–44904, 

44906, 44912, 46105, Public Law 107–71 sec. 

104. 

■ 6. Add § 129.119 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 129.119 Fuel tank vent explosion 

protection. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to transport category, turbine-powered 

airplanes with a type certificate issued 

after January 1, 1958, that, as a result of 

original type certification or later 

increase in capacity, have: 

(1) A maximum type-certificated 

passenger capacity of 30 or more, or 

(2) A maximum payload capacity of 

7,500 pounds or more. 

(b) New production airplanes. No 

certificate holder may operate an 

airplane for which the State of 

Manufacture issued the original 

certificate of airworthiness or export 

airworthiness approval after [insert date 

2 years after effective date of rule] 

unless fuel tank vent system explosion 

prevention means meeting the 

requirements of § 25.975 of this chapter, 

are installed and operational. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in 

Washington, DC, on August 1, 2014. 

Frank Paskiewicz, 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18959 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0569; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–047–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 

series airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report of loose bolts that 

are intended to secure the translating 

door crank assembly to the outside 

handle shaft. This proposed AD would 

require a detailed inspection for loose 

bolts on the aft translating door crank 

assembly, and removal and 

reinstallation of the bolts. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent loose bolts 

from falling out. If both bolts become 

loose or fall out after the door is closed 

and locked, the door cannot be opened 

from inside or outside, which could 

impede evacuation in the event of an 

emergency. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 29, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 

Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario 

M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– 

4000; fax 416–375–4539; email 

thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 

You may view this 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 by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0569; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– 

7318; fax (516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0569; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–047–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2014–08, 

dated February 10, 2014 (referred to 

after this as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for the specified products. The MCAI 

states: 

There was one in-service report where the 

bolts securing the translating door crank 

assembly to the outside handle shaft were 

found loose. It was also found on another 

translating door that sealant was missing on 

these bolts. If both bolts become loose or fall 

out after the door is closed and locked, the 

door cannot be opened from inside or 

outside. 

The aft entry translating door and aft 

service translating door are classified as 

emergency exits. The inability to open an 

emergency exit could impede evacuation in 

the event of an emergency. 

This [Canadian] AD mandates the 

inspection of the translating door crank 

assemblies for loose bolts, as well as 

appropriate rectification [removal and 

reinstallation of the bolts]. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0569. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS