12444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

are still subject to all other applicable 

provisions of this chapter. 

(1) Treatment. Wooden handicrafts 

must be treated in accordance with part 

305 of this chapter. 

(2) Identification tag. All packages in 

which wooden handicrafts are shipped 

must be labeled with a merchandise tag 

containing the identity of the product 

manufacturer. The identification tag 

must be applied to each shipping 

package in China prior to exportation 

and remain attached to the shipping 

package until it reaches the location at 

which the wooden handicraft will be 

sold in the United States. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control numbers 0579–0049, 

0579–0257, 0579–0319, and 0579–0367) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

February 2012. 

Edward Avalos, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4962 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0982; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NE–09–AD; Amendment 39– 

16954; AD 2012–03–12] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company (GE) Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all GE 

CF6–80C2 model turbofan engines, 

including engines marked on the engine 

data plate as CF6–80C2B7F1. This AD 

was prompted by a report of a supplier 

shipping a batch of nonconforming No. 

3 bearing packings that had incorrect 

cooling holes and by subsequent reports 

of nonconforming No. 3 bearing 

packings being installed on engines in 

service. This AD requires a one-time 

inspection of the No. 3 bearing packing 

for an incorrect cooling hole size and, if 

it is found nonconforming, removing the 

packing and removing certain engine 

rotating life-limited parts (LLPs), if they 

were operated with unacceptable rotor 

bore cooling flow for a specified number 

of cycles. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent an uncontained failure of the 

high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor or 

the low-pressure turbine (LPT) rotor, or 

both, which could cause damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 5, 

2012. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the AD as of April 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact GE 

Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, One Neumann 

Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 

513–552–3272; email: geae.aoc@ge.com. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 781–238–7125. 

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: 

Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: tomasz.rakowski@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 October 18, 2011 (76 FR 

64291). That NPRM proposed to require 

a one-time inspection of the No. 3 

bearing packing for an incorrect cooling 

hole size and, if it is found 

nonconforming, removing the packing 

and removing certain engine rotating 

LLPs, if they were operated with the 

wrong packing for a specified number of 

cycles. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM as Written 

Commenters the Boeing Company and 

Federal Express support the NPRM as 

written. 

Request To Correct Part Number 

Commenters GE and Delta Airlines 

(Delta) indicated that the part number 

noted in the Discussion section of the 

NPRM (76 FR 64291, October 18, 2011) 

was incorrect and should be 

‘‘1471M25P04’’ rather than 

‘‘1292M70P04’’ as listed in the NPRM. 

We agree. However, the Applicability 

section of the final rule is correct. We 

did not change the AD. 

Request To Clarify Incorrect Shipping 

Versus Installing Wrong Seal 

Commenter Lufthansa Technik AG 

(Lufthansa) asked that we state more 

clearly the difference between the issues 

of packings shipped in a batch of 

nonconforming parts and 

nonconforming packings installed in 

engines in service. 

We disagree. The AD sufficiently 

describes the difference between 

nonconforming packings shipped by the 

supplier and those in service. We did 

not change the AD. 

Request To Correct Cost 

Commenter Lufthansa suggested that 

the cost of compliance estimate in the 

NPRM covers only the cost of shipped 

nonconforming parts and does not 

include the cost of replacing 

nonconforming packings that are 

installed in engines in service. 

Lufthansa also noted that the installed 

parts are covered by a different service 

bulletin and are not covered by 

warranty. 

We disagree. Our cost estimate covers 

the inspection and installed parts and is 

independent of any possible warranty 

coverage. We did not change the AD. 

Request To Update GE Service Bulletin 

(SB) Reference 

Commenter Lufthansa requested that 

we provide full instructions for 

compliance for engine models CF6– 

80C2L1F and CF6–80C2K1F. Lufthansa 

noted that neither the NPRM (76 FR 

64291, October 18, 2011) nor GE SB 

CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405 provide enough 

information for these engines to comply 

with the proposed rule. Lufthansa 

requested that we refer to Revision 01 of 

GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405 rather 

than to the original version. 

We agree. We changed the AD by 

updating the GE service bulletin 

references in the AD to GE SB CF6– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 12445 

80C2 S/B 72–1405, Revision 01, dated 

December 16, 2011. 

Request To Revise Cost of Compliance 

Estimate 

Commenter Atlas Air requested that 

we revise the cost estimate by including 

cost to replace LLPs. 

We agree. We revised the cost of 

compliance section in the AD to include 

our estimate for the total fleet 

replacement cost of LLPs with 

unacceptable cooling flows. 

Request for a Cut-Off Date 

Commenter Presidential Flights 

requested that we specify a date after 

which the batch of non-conforming No. 

3 bearing packings with incorrect 

cooling holes was supplied, and that we 

limit applicability to engines that had a 

shop visit after this specified date. 

Commenter Japan Airlines requested 

that the AD not apply to engines with 

a last shop visit prior to November 30, 

2009, if there have not been reports of 

non-conforming packings for these 

engines. Commenter Atlas Air 

commented that applicability should 

only apply to engines with packings 

from the affected batch of 

nonconforming parts shipped from a 

supplier. 

We do not agree. The AD applies to 

all CF6–80C2 engines, regardless of the 

date of the last shop visit, the service 

location, or the engine serial number. 

The explanation for inspecting the 

entire fleet is provided in the Discussion 

section of the NPRM (76 FR 64291, 

October 18, 2011). We did not change 

the AD. 

Request To Limit AD by Engine Serial 

Number 

Commenter Atlas Air also asked that 

applicability be changed to specific 

affected engine serial numbers. 

Commenter TES Aviation Group 

requested clarification regarding 

whether the AD applied only to engines 

with certain serial numbers or 

maintained in certain service locations. 

We disagree. The AD applies to all 

CF6–80C2 engines, regardless of engine 

serial number or last service location. 

We did not change the AD. 

Request Regarding Shop Visit 

Commenter GE requested that the 

applicability be changed to apply to 

only those engines that have had a shop 

visit where the fan was removed from 

the engine core and GE SB CF6–80C2 

S/B 72–1405 was not completed during 

or since that visit. GE indicated that no 

new production engines are affected by 

the nonconformance and engines that 

already complied with the GE SB CF6– 

80C2 S/B 72–1405 shop inspection have 

accomplished the requirements of the 

proposed rule. 

We disagree. Excluding all engines 

that have not yet had a shop visit where 

the fan was removed from the core 

leaves an engine population in service 

that might be susceptible to installation 

of the nonconforming packing. We did 

not change the AD. 

Credit for Previous Inspection 

Commenter All Nippon Airways 

(ANA) asked that credit be given to 

engines inspected in accordance with 

GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405 before 

the effective date of this AD. 

We agree. We changed the AD to 

indicate that a previous inspection 

meets the one-time inspection 

requirements of this AD. 

Request To Add Additional Engine 

Models for Compliance 

Commenter Lufthansa requested that 

we include CF6–45/50, CF6–80A, and 

CF6–80E1 engines, as applicable, to the 

AD. 

We disagree. We have not received 

reports of nonconforming packing 

installed in any engine other than the 

CF6–80C2. We did not change the AD. 

Request To Mandate Compliance of 

Spare Parts 

An unidentified commenter requested 

that we mandate compliance of spare 

parts. 

We do not agree. This AD affects 

assembled engines in service on the 

effective date of the AD. Parts installed 

in an engine after the effective date of 

this AD must be airworthy per § 43.13 

of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Operators may choose to 

perform inspections in accordance with 

this AD before returning engines from 

shop into service, although these 

inspections are not required by this AD 

before specified compliance times. In 

order to avoid confusion, we added a 

prohibition statement, paragraph (i), 

which does not allow re-installation of 

the LLPs removed from service in 

accordance with this AD. 

Request To Clarify Terminating Action 

Commenter ANA requested that we 

clarify the terminating action to the AD. 

We disagree. The AD mandates a onetime inspection and disposition. 

Terminating action does not apply. We 

did not change the AD. 

Request To Allow Borescope Inspection 

(BSI) To Determine Packing 

Configuration 

Eight commenters requested that we 

approve a BSI to determine the No. 3 

bearing packing configuration either onwing or in the shop and to determine if 

further actions are necessary. 

We partially agree. We agree that a 

BSI may be used to measure packing 

hole diameters to determine acceptable 

cooling flows. We disagree with using a 

BSI to determine the part number of the 

packing or the need for further actions 

as a BSI cannot be used to make such 

a determination on all affected engines. 

We changed the AD to allow the onetime No. 3 bearing packing inspection to 

occur at the next shop visit if a 

successful optional BSI is performed 

within 500 cycles in service (CIS) from 

the effective date of the AD. 

Request To Modify Compliance Time 

Commenters GE and Delta requested 

that we change the compliance time of 

the one-time inspection to be performed 

at the next shop visit in which the fan 

is separated from the HPC. GE indicated 

that it has not determined that removal 

from service prior to 5,500 CIS is 

required. GE regards 5,500 CIS as an 

economic threshold not a hard life 

removal threshold. 

We disagree. We do not agree with 

unconditional deferral to the next shop 

visit as unacceptable cooling flow could 

affect the lives of the LLPs. We did not 

change the AD. 

Request To Address Fan Frames With 

Small Cooling Holes 

Commenter Atlas Air asked that the 

service information incorporated by 

reference be revised to address certain 

fan frame part numbers with small 

cooling holes. Atlas Air indicated that 

certain small fan frame hole diameters 

may affect cooling flows, even though 

the packing configuration is determined 

to provide acceptable flows. 

We do not agree. The cooling flow 

assessment addressed the worst case 

configuration. Cooling flow 

acceptability should be determined from 

the packing hole diameter, not the fan 

frame hole diameter. We did not change 

the AD. 

Request for Action for Engines That 

Have 5,500 CIS Since Last Shop Visit 

Six commenters requested that a 

drawdown schedule be provided for 

engines that have accumulated 5,500 or 

more CIS since the last engine shop visit 

when the fan was removed from the 

core. Some of these commenters 

reported that some of their engines were 

already past 5,500 CIS since the last 

engine shop visit in which the fan was 

removed from the core. 

We agree. We changed the AD to 

require the inspection within 500 CIS of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12446 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the effective date of this AD for those 

post-5,500-cycle engines. 

Request on LLP Pass/Fail Criteria 

Commenters Air Canada and TES 

Aviation Group requested that growth 

checks, hardness checks, or calculations 

be allowed to determine the disposition 

of LLPs affected by the unacceptable 

cooling flows instead of removing the 

parts from service if they were operated 

for 5,500 CIS or more with a No. 3 

bearing packing determined to be 

‘‘UNACCEPTABLE FLOW.’’ 

We do not agree. We have no 

technical substantiation that supports 

pass/fail criteria for determining if LLPs 

have operated with an unacceptable 

flow packing configuration. We did not 

change the AD. 

Request on LLP Determination 

Commenter Presidential Flight 

requested that LLP determination be 

based on CIS since first shop visit after 

supply of the affected batch, not the last 

shop visit because, they noted, an 

engine may have had multiple shop 

visits since the affected batch of 

nonconforming packings was shipped. 

Commenters Air Canada, Atlas Air, and 

TES Aviation Group indicated that it is 

impossible to determine how many 

cycles the LLPs have operated with 

nonconforming packings, because the 

packings are not serialized or tracked. In 

addition, the commenters noted that, if 

an engine is inspected and found to 

have a conforming packing, there is no 

guarantee that a nonconforming packing 

had not been used on that engine 

between earlier shop visits. Also, the 

commenters observed that it is 

impossible to estimate the effect on life 

of the LLPs that had operated with a 

nonconforming packing and were later 

removed from the engine. 

We do not agree. Installation dates 

when nonconforming packings might 

have been installed into engines in 

service are unknown. Similarly, engine 

operation with nonconforming packing 

cannot be determined other than via 

inspection of the currently installed 

packing. We did not change the AD. 

Request for Disposition of LLPs for 

Unacceptable Flows 

Commenters GE, American Airlines, 

and Delta requested that we provide the 

requirement for LLP disposition in the 

case of the cooling flows determined not 

to be ‘‘CORRECT FLOW’’ in accordance 

with GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405, 

dated June 30, 2011. 

We agree. Unacceptable cooling flows 

are now addressed in Revision 01 of GE 

SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405, dated 

December 16, 2011, and GE SB CF6– 

80C2 S/B 72–1427, dated December 16, 

2011. Therein, cooling flows not 

affecting the LLPs in the rotors are 

described as ‘‘acceptable flow.’’ We 

revised the AD in paragraph (h) to 

remove from service those LLPs that had 

been operated for 5,500 CIS or more 

with unacceptable flow and added 

paragraph (g) to define criteria for 

acceptable flows determined during an 

optional borescope inspection. 

Request To Revise Criteria for Shop 

Visit 

Commenters GE and KLM Royal 

Dutch Airlines requested that the 

induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for a core vibration trim balance 

procedure that requires separation of a 

major engine flange not be considered 

an engine shop visit. Another 

commenter, Lufthansa, requested that 

the induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for the removal or replacement of 

the stage 1 fan disk or the fan forward 

case also not be considered an engine 

shop visit. 

We partially agree. We agree that the 

induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for core vibration balance should 

not be considered an engine shop visit 

for the purposes of this AD, because it 

does not require separation of the fan 

from the core. We disagree that the 

induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for removal or replacement of the 

stage 1 fan disk or fan forward case 

should not be considered an engine 

shop visit for the purposes of this AD, 

because these procedures require 

maintenance to the fan module. 

We changed the AD to define a shop 

visit as not including induction of an 

engine into a shop solely for core 

vibration trim balance procedures that 

require separation of a major engine 

flange. 

Request To Revise Reference to Fan and 

Core Module 

Commenter Delta requested that we 

use the phrase ‘‘fan module removed 

from the core module’’ instead of ‘‘fan 

removed from the core.’’ 

We do not agree. The current language 

is consistent with service documents 

that we incorporate by reference in this 

AD. We did not change the AD. 

Explanation of Additional Changes to 

This AD 

We provided incorrect contact 

information for GE in the NPRM (76 FR 

64291, October 18, 2011). We have 

updated the contact information. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed all the data presented, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We have determined that these changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 

64291, October 18, 2011) for correcting 

the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 64291, 

October 18, 2011). 

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 will affect 

688 engines installed on airplanes of 

U.S. registry. We also estimate that it 

will take about 1 work-hour per engine 

to perform the borescope inspection, 

about 1 work-hour per engine to 

perform the shop inspection, and 1 

work-hour to replace the No. 3 bearing 

packing, if found nonconforming. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Required parts cost about $488 per 

engine for the estimated 21 engines that 

will require new No. 3 bearing packing. 

We estimate that one set of LLPs will 

need replacement, and the total 

replacement cost is $1,201,200. Based 

on these figures, we estimate the total 

cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be 

$1,330,193. Our estimate is exclusive of 

any possible warranty coverage. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 12447 

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): 

2012–03–12 General Electric Company 

(GE): Amendment 39–16954; Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0982; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NE–09–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective April 5, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD is applicable to all GE CF6–80C2 

model turbofan engines, including engines 

marked on the engine data plate as CF6– 

80C2B7F1. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of a 

supplier shipping a batch of nonconforming 

No. 3 bearing packings that had an incorrect 

size of cooling holes and by several 

subsequent reports of nonconforming No. 3 

bearing packings being installed on engines 

in service. The nonconformance of No. 3 

bearing packings will result in incorrect highpressure compressor (HPC) rotor and lowpressure turbine (LPT) rotor bore cooling 

and, if not corrected, could result in a 

reduced parts life of the life-limited rotating 

parts. We are issuing this AD to prevent an 

uncontained failure of the HPC rotor or the 

LPT rotor, or both, which could cause 

damage to the airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(f) One-Time Inspection and Disposition of 

the No. 3 Bearing Packing 

(1) Perform a one-time inspection of the 

No. 3 bearing packing. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) 

through 3.A.(1)(b) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. 

CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405, Revision 01, dated 

December 16, 2011, to do your inspection. 

Inspect as follows: 

(i) Before 5,500 engine cycles-in-service 

(CIS) since the last engine shop visit where 

the fan was removed from the core, or within 

500 CIS from the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later; or 

(ii) At the next shop visit, if the engine 

passes an optional borescope inspection (BSI) 

within 500 CIS from the effective date of this 

AD. 

(2) Remove the packing from service before 

further flight if the wrong packing part 

number (P/N) is found on the engine during 

the inspection of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. 

(g) Optional BSI 

The optional BSI identified in paragraph 

(f)(1)(ii) of this AD must determine an 

‘‘ACCEPTABLE FLOW’’ packing is installed. 

Use paragraph 3.A, excluding subparagraphs 

3.A.(4)(a)6 through 3.A.(4)(a)9 and 

3.A.(4)(b)5, of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72– 

1427, dated December 16, 2011, to do your 

BSI. 

(h) Disposition of Affected Rotating Parts 

Remove the following rotating parts from 

service, if they were operated for 5,500 CIS 

or more with a packing determined to be an 

‘‘UNACCEPTABLE FLOW’’ packing using 

paragraph 3.A.(1)(c) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72– 

1405, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2011: 

(1) HPC rotor stage 10-through-14 spool, 

any P/N, 

(2) HPC rotor stage 11-through-14 spool, 

any P/N, 

(3) LPT rotor stage 3 disk, P/N 

9373M53P05, and 

(4) LPT rotor stage 4 disk, P/N 

9373M54P03. 

(i) Installation Prohibition 

After the effective date of this AD, do not 

install or reinstall in any engine any rotating 

part that has been removed from service in 

accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(j) Definition 

For the purposes of this AD, an engine 

shop visit is the induction of an engine into 

the shop after the effective date of this AD, 

where the separation of a major engine flange 

occurs; except the following maintenance 

actions, or any combination, are not 

considered engine shop visits: 

(1) Induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for removal of the compressor top or 

bottom case for airfoil maintenance or 

variable stator vane bushing replacement. 

(2) Induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for replacement of the turbine rear 

frame. 

(3) Induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for replacement of the accessory 

gearbox or transfer gearbox, or both. 

(4) Induction of an engine into a shop 

solely for core vibration trim balance 

procedure that requires separation of a major 

engine flange. 

(k) Credit for Previous Action 

An inspection of the No. 3 bearing packing 

performed before the effective date of this AD 

using GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405 satisfies 

the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 

the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your 

request. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: tomasz.rakowski@faa.gov. 

(2) GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405, 

Revision 01, dated December 16, 2011, and 

GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1427, dated 

December 16, 2011, pertain to the subject of 

this AD. Contact GE Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, 

One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; 

phone: 513–552–3272; email: 

geae.aoc@ge.com; for a copy of this service 

information. 

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) You must use the following service 

information to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the 

following service information: 

(i) General Electric Company (GE) Service 

Bulletin (SB) CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405, dated 

June 30, 2011; 

(ii) GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405, 

Revision 01, dated December 16, 2011; and 

(iii) GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1427, dated 

December 16, 2011. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact GE Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, 

One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; 

phone: 513–552–3272; email: 

geae.aoc@ge.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at an NARA facility, call 202–741– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12448 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

February 7, 2012. 

Peter A. White, 

Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4747 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0944; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NE–11–AD; Amendment 39– 

16960; AD 2012–04–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & 

Whitney Division Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt 

& Whitney PW4050, PW4052, PW4056, 

PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, 

PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152, PW4156, 

PW4156A, PW4158, PW4160, PW4460, 

PW4462, and PW4650 turbofan engines, 

including models with any dash number 

suffix. This AD was prompted by an 

engine overspeed event that occurred 

during taxi and resulted in a highpressure compressor surge and tailpipe 

fire. This AD requires replacing Pratt & 

Whitney fuel metering units (FMUs), 

part numbers (P/Ns) 53T335 (HS 

801000–1), 55T423 (HS 801000–2), and 

50U150 (HS 801000–3) at the next shop 

visit after the effective date of this AD. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent 

engine overspeed on these engines, 

which could result in an uncontained 

engine failure and damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 5, 

2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of April 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Pratt & 

Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, 

CT 06108, phone: 860–565–8770. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

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: 

James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7742; fax: 781– 

238–7199; email: james.e.gray@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 November 7, 2011 (76 FR 

68660). That NPRM proposed to require 

replacing the FMU, P/N 50U150, at the 

next shop visit after the effective date of 

the proposed AD. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Specify the Replacement 

FMU 

Delta Airlines, Inc. requested that we 

specify replacing affected FMUs with 

FMU P/N 53U044, or later FAAapproved P/Ns. The commenter stated 

that doing this would help avoid 

potential alternative methods of 

compliance questions, and issues with 

specifying compliance to a service 

bulletin. 

We do not agree. We only identify the 

affected parts requiring removal in the 

AD, and the modification that is 

required to correct the design. If we 

identified the replacement part by P/N, 

then, if and when that part gets replaced 

by another P/N, the AD would have to 

be superseded. We did not change the 

AD. 

Request To Extend the Compliance 

Time 

FedEx Express requested that we 

extend the compliance time from 60 

months from the issue date of the 

proposed AD. The additional time is 

needed to plan forced removals of the 

installed FMUs and implement an 

effective modification planning 

program. 

We do not agree. The compliance time 

specified in the AD is at the next shop 

visit. The commenter is referring to an 

outdated version of the service bulletin. 

We did not change the AD. 

Request To Reference Hamilton 

Sundstrand Alert Service Bulletin 

(ASB) No. JFC131–2–73–A24 

Martinair Holland and United 

Airlines, Inc. requested that we also 

reference Hamilton Sundstrand ASB No. 

JFC131–2–73–A24, Revision 1, dated 

May 18, 2011, in the AD compliance, as 

that SB contains information required to 

perform the FMU modification required 

by the AD. 

We agree. We changed the AD to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) only that 

Hamilton Sundstrand ASB. That 

Hamilton Sundstrand ASB is also 

included within the Pratt & Whitney 

ASB No. PW4ENG A73–220, Revision 1, 

dated May 18, 2011, which we listed 

under Related Information. 

Request To Add FMU Part Numbers 

Martinair Holland, United Airlines, 

Inc. and United Parcel Service Co. 

requested that we include Pratt & 

Whitney FMU P/Ns 53T335 and 55T423 

with the existing P/N 50U150, in the 

AD, and also include the equivalent 

Hamilton Sundstrand FMU P/Ns 

801000–3, 801000–1, and 801000–2. 

We agree and added those P/Ns to the 

AD. The equivalent Hamilton 

Sundstrand P/Ns are included in 

parentheses. 

Request To Change Paragraph (f) 

United Airlines, Inc. requested that 

we change paragraph (f) from ‘‘install a 

modified FMU,’’ to ‘‘install a new or 

modified FMU.’’ 

We agree. The intent of the AD is to 

install an FMU incorporating the 

improvements of the modification, 

whether a new or modified FMU. We 

changed paragraph (f) in the AD. 

Request To Not Incorporate by 

Reference the Alert SB 

United Airlines, Inc. requested that 

we not IBR Pratt & Whitney ASB No. 

PW4ENG A73–220, Revision 1, dated 

May 18, 2011, but to instead simply 

reference the ASB in the AD. The 

commenter stated that this would allow 

them flexibility to perform the FMU 

modification using their normal 

maintenance program and shop 

procedures. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES