53430 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Scientific name Common name Dose (gray) 

* * * * * * * 

Ceratitis capitata ................................................ Mediterranean fruit fly ...................................... 100 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day 

of October, 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25120 Filed 10–16–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0295; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–298–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 757 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for all Boeing Model 757–200, –200PF, 

–200CB, and –300 series airplanes. The 

original NPRM would have required an 

inspection of the two spring arms in the 

spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel 

well to determine if the spring arms are 

made of aluminum or composite 

material, and repetitive related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. The original NPRM resulted 

from reports of cracked and broken 

aluminum springs. This action revises 

the original NPRM to include a parts 

installation paragraph and to provide 

options for terminating the repetitive 

actions. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct cracked or broken springs. A 

cracked or broken spring could separate 

from the airplane and result in potential 

hazard to persons or property on the 

ground, or ingestion into the engine 

with engine damage and potential 

shutdown, or damage to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by November 

13, 2009. 

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 proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

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

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221 or 425–227–1152. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Hartman, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6432; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0295; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–298–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that would apply to all Boeing Model 

757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 

series airplanes. That original NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13492). That 

original NPRM proposed to require an 

inspection of the two spring arms in the 

spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel 

well to determine if the spring arms are 

made of aluminum or composite 

material, and repetitive related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received from 

the seven commenters. 

Request To Refer to Revision 1 of the 

Service Bulletin 

Boeing and Air Transport Association 

(ATA), on behalf of its member 

American Airlines (AAL), request that 

we include Revision 1 of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, dated October 16, 2008, in the AD. 

(We referred to the original issue, 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–32–0176, dated September 

10, 2007, as the appropriate source of 

service information in the original 

NPRM.) Boeing points out that the 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53431 

revision will include a preferred 

alternative replacement part made from 

corrosion-resistant steel (CRES), as well 

as the current options allowed in the 

original issue of the service bulletin. 

The commenters state that including 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin in the 

AD would eliminate the need for 

additional rulemaking. 

We agree with the request to include 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, dated 

October 16, 2008, as the appropriate 

source of service information in this 

supplemental NPRM. Other changes in 

Revision 1 include changes throughout 

the service bulletin to include 

references to the alternative replacement 

part, and other editorial changes such as 

‘‘springs’’ (instead of ‘‘spin brake spring 

arms’’) and ‘‘Toe Piece’’ (instead of ‘‘Toe 

Plate’’). Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin also includes a new Figure 7, 

which includes steps for assembling the 

new spin brake assembly with a 

composite ring. We have therefore 

revised all applicable sections in this 

AD to refer to ‘‘springs’’ instead of 

‘‘spring arms’’ to match the description 

in Revision 1 of the service bulletin. 

We have also revised paragraph (f) of 

the original NPRM (paragraph (g) of this 

supplemental NPRM) to refer to 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin. 

Additionally, we have added a new 

paragraph (i) to this supplemental 

NPRM to specify that replacement of an 

aluminum spin brake assembly with a 

spin brake assembly made of CRES is an 

optional terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections specified in 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM for that spring. In addition, we 

have included a new paragraph (k) in 

this supplemental NPRM to give credit 

to operators who have accomplished the 

actions in accordance with Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, dated September 10, 2007. 

Request To Address Interchangeability 

of Parts 

ATA, on behalf of its member Delta 

Airlines (DAL), requests that we address 

the interchangeability of spring arms. 

DAL states that the original NPRM 

implies the inspection to determine the 

type of spring arm is done once in the 

lifetime of the airplane. DAL further 

states that aluminum spring arms and 

composite spring arms are 

interchangeable; therefore, the spring 

arm could be changed from one to the 

other type at any time in the life of an 

airplane. DAL contends that repetitive 

inspections to determine the type of 

spring arm should be required for all 

airplanes unless it can be proven that 

aluminum brake arms are not installed 

and never will be. 

We agree that the issue of 

interchangeability of spring arms needs 

to be clarified, although we disagree 

with the request to add a repetitive 

inspection to determine the type of 

spring arm. We have, instead, added a 

new paragraph (j) to this supplemental 

NPRM to specify that, as of the effective 

date of the proposed AD, no person may 

install an aluminum spring arm on any 

airplane unless it has been inspected 

and all applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions have been 

applied in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Request To Allow Alternative 

Procedure 

Northwest Airlines (NWA), and ATA 

on behalf of its member DAL, request 

that we allow replacement of the brake 

arm in accordance with the Boeing 757 

Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 

32–45–05, Nose wheel spin brake— 

maintenance practices. NWA states that 

these procedures have been in place for 

a long time and are equivalent to the 

procedures for the replacement 

specified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, dated 

September 10, 2007. The commenters 

assert that including a note stating that 

the AMM is acceptable as an alternative 

procedure would alleviate compliance 

concerns if the replacement was or is 

done in accordance with the AMM 

procedures, but not concurrently with 

the inspection proposed in the original 

NPRM. 

We agree with the commenters that 

the procedures in the service bulletin 

and in the AMM are equivalent. 

However, Part 5 of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, already refers to the AMM 

procedures; therefore, it is not necessary 

for us to revise the supplemental NPRM 

to include a reference to the AMM. We 

have not changed this supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Requests To Clarify Compliance Times 

ATA, on behalf of its member AAL, 

requests that we revise the NPRM to 

clarify the compliance times. AAL 

explains that the original NPRM refers 

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

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–32–0176, dated September 

10, 2007, as the source for compliance 

times. However, AAL notes that the 

table in paragraph 1.E. guides operators 

to perform the actions in accordance 

with Parts 2, 3, and 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, dated September 10, 2007. 

Part 2 includes a note that states that 

Parts 3 and 4 ‘‘must be done’’ at the 

same time as Part 2 where aluminum 

spin break arms are installed; AAL 

states that this note is incorrect. 

We agree with the commenter that 

Parts 2, 3, and 4 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, dated 

September 10, 2007, do not need to be 

done simultaneously. Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, revised Part 2 to specify that Parts 

3 and 4 ‘‘can be done’’ at the same time. 

The compliance times in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ are correct; therefore, we 

have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Part 1 and Part 6 

Compliance 

ATA, on behalf of DAL, requests that 

we address providing for access and 

close-up at times convenient to the 

operators’ maintenance schedules. DAL 

notes that Parts 1 and 6 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, dated September 10, 2007, 

spell out access and close-up 

requirements. DAL states that operators 

might wish to combine the inspection 

proposed in the original NPRM with 

other maintenance visits where access is 

already available. DAL states that 

tracking compliance for access and 

close-up tasks using the procedures 

specified in the original NPRM would 

add paperwork without value. DAL 

requests that we add a note to the 

supplemental NPRM that states that 

Parts 1 and 6 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions are for operator use and 

that compliance documentation is not 

required. 

We disagree with the request to 

change this supplemental NPRM to state 

that Parts 1 and 6 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, dated September 10, 2007, are 

for operator use only. Both Note 7 under 

paragraph 3.A. of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, dated September 10, 2007, and 

Note 8 under paragraph 3.A. of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 

2008, give provisions for operators to 

use other accepted alternative 

procedures for actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions when the 

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

are used in both Parts 1 and 6 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions. In 

addition, although these actions are 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53432 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

necessary to accomplish the 

inspections, Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 

1, dated October 16, 2008, provides 

alternative methods for access and 

close-up, as defined in Notes 5 and 6 

under paragraph 3.A. of the 

Accomplishment Instructions. Since the 

suggested note is already contained in 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

service bulletin, no additional notes are 

necessary in this supplemental NPRM. 

We have not changed this supplemental 

NPRM in either regard. 

Request To Address Ferry Permits 

ATA, on behalf of DAL, requests that 

we state that since removal of the brake 

arms is allowed by the Minimum 

Equipment List (MEL), no ferry permit 

information is included in this 

supplemental NPRM. The commenter 

points out that many ADs include 

language regarding ferry flights. 

We disagree with the request to 

address ferry permits (also called 

‘‘special flight permits’’) in this 

supplemental NPRM. As specified in 

the ‘‘Relevant Service Information’’ 

section of the original NPRM, Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, dated September 10, 2007, 

states that the airplane can be operated 

for 10 calendar days with the spin brake 

spring arms removed provided the 

airplane is operated within the 

restrictions given in the Boeing 757 

Master Minimum Equipment List 

(MMEL). If necessary, special flight 

permits, and the process for applying for 

them, are described in Section 21.197 

and Section 21.199 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 

and 21.199); it is not necessary to 

change this supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Revise Cost Estimate 

Continental Airlines (CAL) believes 

that the cost estimate given in the 

original NPRM is relatively low as it 

assumes zero fallout. If CAL decides 

either to accomplish the recommended 

terminating action (which would be to 

install a CRES spring arm) due to a 

crack or to avoid the repetitive 

inspections, it will not only cost around 

$10,000 for parts and labor per spring 

arm, but will add weight to the airplane, 

making for additional yearly fuel costs. 

We infer that CAL would like us to 

revise the ‘‘Costs of Compliance’’ 

section of the original NPRM. We 

disagree. We recognize that, in doing the 

actions required by an AD, operators 

might incur incidental costs in addition 

to the direct costs. The cost analysis in 

AD rulemaking actions, however, 

typically does not include the cost of 

optional actions, although we recognize 

that doing the optional terminating 

action imposes additional operational 

costs. We have not changed this 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Requests To Clarify Inspections 

NWA and CAL request that we clarify 

the inspections. CAL believes that the 

visual and high-frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspections are redundant and 

give somewhat contradictory 

information about the failure mode of 

the spring arm. CAL recommends that 

Boeing and the FAA review the 

inspection intervals again before the 

next revision of the service bulletin. 

NWA finds it unusual that Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

32–0176, dated September 10, 2007, has 

two separate and parallel inspection 

programs to look for cracking in the 

subject spring arms. One inspection 

program is a 300-cycle repetitive general 

visual inspection and the other is a 

1,500-cycle repetitive HFEC inspection. 

NWA asks the FAA to work with Boeing 

to clarify that these inspections are 

either parallel to or optional to each 

other. 

We disagree that the inspections are 

redundant. The manufacturer has 

determined that both inspections are 

needed for the required Damage 

Tolerance Rating (DTR). The 

manufacturer states that analytical crack 

growth and residual strength do not 

match the cracking found in service, 

and that there are several variables that 

can affect the stress in the part. The 

HFEC inspection is the minimum 

required at the longer 1,500-flight-cycle 

intervals, while the general visual 

inspection provides added safety for 

cracking at 300 flight cycle intervals. 

Therefore, both the general visual and 

the HFEC inspections are necessary to 

meet the DTR. We have not changed this 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Revise Repetitive Inspection 

Interval 

Air Astana requests that we consider 

the possibility of revising the repetitive 

interval from 1,500 flight cycles to 1,800 

flight cycles. Air Astana points out that 

its fleet of Model 757–200 airplanes 

accumulates 1,800 flight cycles between 

C-checks. 

We disagree with the request to revise 

the repetitive inspection intervals. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for this action, we considered the 

urgency associated with the subject 

unsafe condition and the practical 

aspect of accomplishing the required 

modification within a period of time 

that corresponds to the normal 

scheduled maintenance for most 

affected operators. These maintenance 

schedules can vary greatly from operator 

to operator. However, according to the 

provisions of paragraph (l) of this 

supplemental NPRM, we may approve a 

request to adjust the compliance time if 

the request includes data that prove that 

the new compliance time would provide 

an acceptable level of safety. We have 

not changed this supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all 

pertinent information and determined 

an unsafe condition exists and is likely 

to exist or develop on other products of 

the same type design. Certain changes 

described above expand the scope of the 

original NPRM. As a result, we have 

determined that it is necessary to reopen 

the comment period to provide 

additional opportunity for the public to 

comment on this supplemental NPRM. 

Explanation of Additional Paragraph in 

the Supplemental NPRM 

We have added a new paragraph (d) 

to this supplemental NPRM to provide 

the Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America code. This code is added to 

make this supplemental NPRM parallel 

with other new AD actions. We have 

reidentified subsequent paragraphs 

accordingly. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 668 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 1 work-hour per product to 

comply with this proposed AD. The 

average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of this proposed AD for U.S. 

operators to be $53,440, or $80 per 

product. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53433 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

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

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2008–0295; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–298–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 13, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 

757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 series 

airplanes, certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 32: Landing Gear. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of cracked 

and broken aluminum springs. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked 

or broken springs. A cracked or broken spring 

could separate from the airplane and result 

in potential hazard to persons or property on 

the ground, or ingestion into the engine with 

engine damage and potential shutdown, or 

damage to the airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Inspections and Corrective Actions 

(g) At the applicable time specified in 

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

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, 

except that where Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, 

dated October 16, 2008, specifies a 

compliance time after the date ‘‘on this 

service bulletin,’’ this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD: Do 

a general visual inspection to determine the 

material (aluminum or composite) of the two 

springs in the spin brake assemblies in the 

nose wheel well. A review of airplane 

maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of 

this inspection if the material can be 

conclusively determined from that review. 

Do all applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions, and all repetitive 

inspections thereafter, at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

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

2008. Do all actions in accordance with 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

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

2008. 

Optional Terminating Actions 

(h) Replacing an aluminum spin brake 

assembly with a spin brake assembly made 

of composite material in accordance with 

Figure 5 of Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–32–0176, Revision 1, dated 

October 16, 2008, ends the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD for that spring. 

(i) Replacing an aluminum spring with a 

spring made of corrosion–resistant steel 

(CRES), in accordance with Figure 6 of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

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

2008, ends the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that 

spring. 

Parts Installation 

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

person may install an aluminum spring on 

any airplane unless it has been inspected and 

all applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions have been applied in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Credit for Previous Revision of Service 

Bulletin 

(k) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32–0176, 

dated September 10, 2007, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Chris 

Hartman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6432; fax (425) 917–6590. Or, email information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACOAMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

5, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–24984 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0912; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–047–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; BAE 

Systems (Operations) Limited Model 

BAe 146 and Avro 146–RJ Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS