46532 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

■ 10. Amend § 115.35 as follows: 

■ (a) Revise paragraph (c)(1) as set forth 

below; 

■ (b) In paragraph (c)(4), remove ‘‘90 

days’’ and add ‘‘45 days’’ in its place. 

§ 115.35 Claims for reimbursement of 

Losses. 

* * * * * 

(c) Claim reimbursement requests. (1) 

Claims for reimbursement for Losses 

which the Surety has paid must be 

submitted (together with a copy of the 

bond, the bonded Contract, and any 

indemnity agreements) with the initial 

claim to OSG on a ‘‘Default Report, 

Claim for Reimbursement and Report of 

Recoveries’’ (SBA Form 994H), within 

90 days from the time of each 

disbursement. Claims submitted after 90 

days must be accompanied by 

substantiation satisfactory to SBA. The 

date of the claim for reimbursement is 

the date of receipt of the claim by SBA, 

or such later date as additional 

information requested by SBA is 

received. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 115.36 paragraph (a)(3) 

by removing ‘‘90 days’’ and adding ‘‘45 

days’’ in its place. 

■ 12. Amend § 115.67 paragraph (a) by 

removing ‘‘$50,000’’ and adding 

‘‘$100,000, whichever is less’’ in its 

place. 

■ 13. Revise § 115.69 to read as follows: 

§ 115.69 Imminent Breach. 

(a) No Prior Approval Requirement. 

SBA will reimburse a PSB Surety for the 

guaranteed portion of payments the 

Surety makes to avoid or attempt to 

avoid an Imminent Breach of the terms 

of a Contract covered by an SBA 

guaranteed bond. The aggregate of the 

payments by SBA under this section 

cannot exceed 10% of the Contract 

amount, unless the Administrator finds 

that a greater payment (not to exceed the 

guaranteed portion of the bond penalty) 

is necessary and reasonable. The PSB 

Surety does not need to obtain prior 

SBA approval to make Imminent Breach 

payments, except that the PSB Surety 

may request SBA to approve payments 

that exceed 10% of the Contract amount 

prior to the Surety making the payment. 

In no event will SBA make any 

duplicate payment under any provision 

of these regulations in this part. 

(b) Recordkeeping Requirement. The 

PSB Surety must keep records of 

payments made to avoid Imminent 

Breach. 

■ 14. Amend § 115.70 paragraph (a) as 

follows: 

■ (a) Remove the term ‘‘1 year’’ in the 

first sentence and add the term ‘‘90 

days’’ in its place; and 

■ (b) Remove the term ‘‘90 days’’ in the 

third sentence and add ‘‘45 days’’ in its 

place. 

Dated: July 26, 2013. 

Karen G. Mills, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18530 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0616; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–353–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing 

Company 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 The Boeing Company Model 767 

airplanes. That NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive operational tests of the 

engine fuel suction feed of the fuel 

system, and other related testing if 

necessary. That NPRM was prompted by 

reports of two in-service occurrences on 

Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of 

boost pump pressure of the fuel feed 

system, followed by loss of fuel system 

suction feed capability on one engine, 

and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

This action revises that NPRM by 

proposing to revise the maintenance 

program to incorporate a revision to the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of 

the maintenance planning data (MPD) 

document, and to remove airplanes from 

the applicability. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct failure of the engine fuel suction 

feed capability of the fuel system, which 

could result in dual engine flameout, 

inability to restart the engines, and 

consequent forced landing of the 

airplane. Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the previous NPRM, we are reopening 

the comment period to allow the public 

the chance to comment on these 

proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by September 

16, 2013. 

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 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, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5280; 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. 

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 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue 

Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 

Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3352; 

phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

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–2008–0616; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–353–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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46533 

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 an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

767 airplanes. That NPRM published in 

the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 

FR 32252). That NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive operational tests of the 

engine fuel suction feed of the fuel 

system, and other related testing if 

necessary, according to a method 

approved by the FAA. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 

32252, June 6, 2008) Was Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008), we have 

received comments from operators 

indicating a high level of difficulty 

performing the actions in the previous 

NPRM during maintenance operations. 

It is standard practice for operators to 

revise maintenance tasks to incorporate 

actions into their individual 

maintenance manuals as part of the 

maintenance program. Based on these 

comments, and a review of the previous 

NPRM, we determined a revision to the 

procedures was necessary. In 

conjunction with Boeing we developed 

an airworthiness limitation for the 

engine fuel suction feed system to 

address this issue. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D622T001–9, Revision October 2012 

and Revision January 2013, of the 

Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document. Among other things, 

Section 9 describes AWL No. 28–AWL– 

101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed 

Operational Test, of Section E., AWLS— 

Fuel Systems, which provides 

procedures for performing repetitive 

operational tests of the engine fuel 

suction feed of the fuel system. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32252, June 6, 2008). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

previous NPRM and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Request To Withdraw the Previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008) 

ABX Air asked that we withdraw the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 

2008). ABX stated that there have been 

no incidents recorded in the NTSB or 

FAA databases for a Model 767 flameout 

due to the loss of fuel system suction 

feed capability. ABX added that it does 

not believe the subject unsafe condition 

is a critical safety concern. 

We do not agree with the request to 

withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32252, June 6, 2008), because, together 

with the manufacturer, we have 

evaluated this issue and determined it 

to be an important safety concern. 

Although the fuel system on Model 767 

airplanes differs from the Model 737 

with respect to the engine fuel feed 

system design, service data of transport 

category airplanes indicates that multiengine flameouts have generally 

resulted from a common cause, such as 

fuel mismanagement, crew action that 

inadvertently shut off the fuel supply to 

the engines, exposure to common 

environmental conditions, or engine 

deterioration on all engines of the same 

type. Successful in-flight restart of the 

engines is dependent on adequate fuel 

being supplied to the engines, solely 

through engine fuel suction feed. 

Deterioration of the fuel plumbing 

system can lead to line (vacuum) losses, 

reducing the engine fuel suction feed 

capability; therefore, directed 

maintenance is necessary to ensure this 

system is functioning correctly in order 

to maintain continued safe flight of the 

airplane. We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Incorporate CMR Task Into 

the Maintenance Program Instead of 

Issuing an NPRM 

ABX, Japan Airlines International 

(JAL), and Qantas Airways Ltd. asked 

that a CMR task be developed for 

incorporation into the maintenance 

program instead of issuing an NPRM (73 

FR 32252, June 6, 2008). The 

commenters stated that the maintenance 

program is already in use by operators 

and the procedures are understood and 

followed. Qantas added that the task 

associated with this action will generate 

an administrative burden for operators, 

with no benefit. 

We do not agree with the requests to 

develop a CMR task. CMRs are 

developed by the Certification 

Maintenance Coordination Committee 

(CMCC) during the type certification 

process. The CMCC is made up of 

manufacturer representatives (typically 

maintenance, design, and safety 

engineering personnel), operator 

representatives designated by the 

Industry Steering Committee 

chairperson, FAA Aircraft Certification 

Office specialists, and the Maintenance 

Review Board (MRB) chairperson. CMRs 

developed during this process become a 

part of the certification basis of the 

airplane upon issuance of the type 

certificate. We do not have a process for 

convening the CMCC outside of the type 

certification process; based on this, the 

CMR is not an option for replacing this 

AD. Therefore, if the airworthiness 

limitation items (ALIs) were not in the 

maintenance program at the time of 

initial certification, an AD is required to 

make the ALI task a required action. We 

have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Requests To Allow the Use of Later 

Revisions of the Maintenance 

Documents 

Air New Zealand (ANZ), ABX, 

Continental Airlines (CAL), and Boeing 

asked that we allow using later revisions 

of the referenced maintenance 

documents, because those documents 

could be revised over time and would 

require frequent requests for alternative 

methods of compliance (AMOCs). 

We do not agree with the request. 

Allowing later revisions of service 

documents in an AD is not allowed by 

the Office of the Federal Register 

regulations for approving materials 

incorporated by reference. We have 

made no change to the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Reason for the 

Unsafe Condition 

Boeing asked that we clarify the 

reason for the unsafe condition 

identified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32252, June 6, 2008). Boeing asked that 

the AD include the results from a report 

of in-service occurrences of loss of fuel 

system suction feed capability on one 

engine, due to two in-service engine 

flameout events on a Model 737–400 

airplane while operating on suction feed 

with undetected air leak failures. Boeing 

stated that there are no known reports 

of any engine flameout related to events 

on Model 767 airplanes. Boeing 

acknowledged that undetected air leaks 

could exist and that this maintenance 

procedure is a proactive measure to 

ensure engine flameout will not occur 

during suction feed operation. 

We agree to clarify the unsafe 

condition. We have revised the 

Summary section and paragraph (e) of 

this supplemental NPRM accordingly. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46534 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Requests for Changes To Certain 

Maintenance Document References 

JAL, ANZ, and Boeing asked that we 

remove the airplane maintenance 

manual (AMM) reference to Section 28– 

22–00 specified in paragraph (f) of the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 

2008). The commenters stated that the 

AMM is covered in Boeing 767 Task 

Card 28–020–02, and noted that having 

fewer references included lessens the 

chance of errors. 

We acknowledge and agree with the 

commenters concerns regarding the 

maintenance documents referenced in 

the previous NPRM (73 FR 32253, June 

6, 2008). However, these maintenance 

documents are not FAA-approved and 

we do not have the publication controls 

associated with AD-related service 

documents. We do not agree with the 

requested changes because we have 

decided to mandate an FAA-approved 

document which should eliminate these 

concerns. We changed paragraph (f) of 

the previous NPRM (paragraph (g) in 

this supplemental NPRM) to require 

revising the maintenance program to 

incorporate new procedures into the 

maintenance documents. 

Requests To Extend Repetitive Test 

Intervals 

CAL and Air Canada asked that we 

extend the repetitive operational test 

interval specified in paragraph (f) of the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 

2008). 

CAL stated that a re-evaluation of the 

proposed repetitive interval limit after 

doing the initial inspection should be 

done, since CAL’s service history has 

revealed no reported engine flameout 

events or related operational 

discrepancies. CAL asked that the 

repetitive interval be extended to a 

normal maintenance 2C-check or within 

12,000 flight hours, whichever occurs 

first. 

Air Canada asked that the repetitive 

interval be extended to a calendar time 

of 24 months. Air Canada does not 

understand the logic behind a repetitive 

frequency of 7,500 flight hours. 

We do not agree with the requests that 

the repetitive intervals be extended. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for the actions specified in 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008)), we 

considered the safety implications and 

normal maintenance schedules for the 

timely accomplishment of the specified 

actions. We have determined that the 

proposed compliance time will ensure 

an acceptable level of safety and allow 

the actions to be done during scheduled 

maintenance intervals for most affected 

operators. However, affected operators 

may request an AMOC to request an 

extension of the repetitive operational 

test interval under the provisions of 

paragraph (h) of this supplemental 

NPRM by submitting data substantiating 

that the change would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Clarify That Engine Fuel 

Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu of 

the Operational Test 

JAL asked that we clarify that the 

engine fuel suction feed test procedure 

in the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning 

Data (MPD) document is an option for 

performing the operational test in the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 

2008). JAL asked that we consider 

adding the pressure leak check of the 

fuel lines and fittings procedure as an 

alternative procedure to performing the 

operational test specified in Section 28– 

22–00 of the Boeing 767 Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM). 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

pressure leak check is not equivalent to 

the operational test (Task 28–22–00– 

710–802) since certain fuel line seal 

details may function normally under 

positive pressure, but fail to hold in-line 

vacuum when under fuel suction feed. 

Additionally, a fuel suction feed test 

would be required after reconnecting 

the fuel line to the manifold to verify 

final system integrity. Therefore, we 

have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Include Warning 

Information 

CAL suggested that the Boeing service 

manuals include a critical design 

configuration control limitation 

(CDCCL) warning identification 

statement to alert maintenance 

personnel of the importance of 

regulatory compliance, as well as the 

configuration control requirement. CAL 

did not include any justification for this 

request. 

We agree that a CDCCL warning 

statement would serve as direct 

communication to maintenance 

personnel that there is an AD associated 

with certain maintenance actions. New 

service information has been added to 

this supplemental NPRM since issuance 

of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, 

June 6, 2008), which should eliminate 

the commenter’s concern. The airplane 

maintenance manual will be a ‘‘referred 

to’’ document within the AWL task, 

which gives operators flexibility in 

developing maintenance programs 

based on equivalent procedures. We 

have made no change to the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Include Corrective Action 

CAL asked that the related testing 

language specified in paragraph (f) of 

the previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 

6, 2008) be changed. CAL stated that the 

language should specify correcting 

discrepancies before further flight if the 

engine fails the operational test. CAL 

added that the corrective actions should 

be done in accordance with the 

procedures in the ‘‘Right (Left) Engine 

Fails the Suction Feed Test’’ procedure 

in the Boeing 767 Fault Isolation 

Manual (FIM) 28–22–00/101. 

We acknowledge and agree with the 

commenters concern. However, as 

stated previously, we are issuing this 

supplemental NPRM to revise the 

maintenance program to incorporate a 

revision to the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section of the MPD 

document to include the ‘‘Engine Fuel 

Suction Feed Operational Test’’ 

procedure. Therefore, the language 

identified by the commenter has been 

removed from this supplemental NPRM. 

We have made no change to the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of the same type 

design. Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32252, June 6, 2008). 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. 

Proposed Requirements of the 

Supplemental NPRM 

This supplemental NPRM revises the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32252, June 6, 

2008) by proposing to remove the 

actions in paragraph (f) of the previous 

NPRM and replace with a revision to the 

maintenance program to incorporate 

procedures for the Engine Fuel Suction 

Feed Operational Test Airworthiness 

Limitations Section of the MPD 

document, and to remove airplanes from 

the applicability. 

This AD requires revisions to certain 

operator maintenance documents to 

include new actions (e.g., inspections) 

and/or CDCCLs. Compliance with these 

actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 

CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have 

been previously modified, altered, or 

repaired in the areas addressed by this 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46535 

AD, the operator may not be able to 

accomplish the actions described in the 

revisions. In this situation, to comply 

with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator 

must request approval for an alternative 

method of compliance according to 

paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. The request 

should include a description of changes 

to the required actions that will ensure 

the continued operational safety of the 

airplane. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 406 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Revise airworthiness limitations ...................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ................. $0 $85 $34,510 

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 

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), 

(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. 

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 airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2008–0616; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–353–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by September 

16, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

that have received a certificate of 

airworthiness or foreign export before 

November 2, 2012. 

Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: 

November 2, 2012, is the original publication 

date of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision 

October 2012, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document, or Revision 

January 2013 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document; including 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLS)—Fuel 

Systems of Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) 

No. 28–AWL–101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed 

Operational Test. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD results from reports of two inservice occurrences on Model 737–400 

airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure 

of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of 

fuel system suction feed capability on one 

engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

failure of the engine fuel suction feed 

capability of the fuel system, which could 

result in dual engine flameout, inability to 

restart the engines, and consequent forced 

landing of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Maintenance Program Revision 

Within 90 days after the effective date of 

this AD: Revise the maintenance program to 

incorporate AWL No. 28–AWL–101, Engine 

Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of 

Section E., AWLS—Fuel Systems of Section 

9, AWLs and CMRs, D622T001–9, Revision 

October 2012 or Revision January 2013, of 

the Boeing 767 MPD Document. 

(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or 

Critical Design Configuration Control 

Limitations (CDCCLs) 

After accomplishing the revision required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative 

actions (e.g., tests), intervals, or CDCCLs may 

be used unless the actions, intervals, or 

CDCCLs are approved as an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

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

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46536 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3352; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5280; 

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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 21, 

2013. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18511 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0668; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–017–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

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 

Airbus Model A300 B4–600 and A300 

B4–600R series airplanes. This proposed 

AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

found in the bottom wing skin stringers 

at rib 14 during full-scale fatigue testing 

and in service. This proposed AD would 

require modifying the profile of stringer 

run-outs at rib 14 of both wings, 

including a high frequency eddy current 

inspection of the fastener holes for 

defects and repair if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent cracking 

in the bottom wing skin stringers, which 

could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the wings. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 16, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, 

Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office 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: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2013–0668; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NM–017–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 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0008R1, 

dated January 22, 2013 (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: 

During full-scale fatigue testing, cracks 

were detected in the bottom wing skin 

stringers at rib 14. In addition, A300 

aeroplane operators have also reported 

finding cracks in the same area. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could impair the structural 

integrity of the wings. 

Additional analysis results showed that the 

improved design of the stringer run-out is 

necessary for aeroplanes operating beyond 

the ESG 1 [extended service goal 1: 42,500 

flight cycles]. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD requires the removal of the 

stringer end run-out plate at stringer 19 on 

the bottom wing skin and the re-profiling 

modification of the stringers 10, 11, 12, 17 

and 19. 

* * * * * 

The modification also includes doing 

a high frequency eddy current 

inspection of the fastener holes for 

defects and repair if necessary. You may 

obtain further information by examining 

the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6046, Revision 01, 

dated April 18, 2011. The actions 

described in this service information are 

intended to correct the unsafe condition 

identified in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS