14722 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) indicating 

that the fuselage skin just above certain lap 

splice locations is subject to widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

the fuselage skin, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the airplane 

and sudden loss of cabin pressure. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspection 

Perform external sliding probe eddy 

current inspections of the fuselage skin for 

cracking, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2854, dated 

September 17, 2012, except where this 

service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing 

for inspection instructions, this AD requires 

doing the inspection using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Do the 

inspection at the applicable initial 

compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2854, dated September 17, 

2012, except where this service bulletin 

specifies a compliance time after the 

‘‘original issue date of this service bulletin,’’ 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(1) If no cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable compliance time intervals 

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

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2854, 

dated September 17, 2012. 

(2) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of 

this AD. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

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

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(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 the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that 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, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6428; fax: 425– 

917–6590; email: 

Nathan.P.Weigand@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

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

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

may review copies of the 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

20, 2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05191 Filed 3–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0618; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–355–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 777 

airplanes. That NPRM proposed to 

require performing 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 inflight 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. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct failure of the engine fuel suction 

feed of the fuel system, which, in the 

event of total loss of the fuel boost 

pumps, 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 April 22, 

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 206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14723 

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 98057–3356; 

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–2008–0618; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–355–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 an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

777 airplanes. That NPRM published in 

the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 

FR 32253). 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 

The Boeing Company 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 inflight shutdown of the engine. The 

subject area on Model 777 airplanes is 

almost identical to that on the affected 

Model 737–400 airplanes. Therefore, 

those Model 777 airplanes may be 

subject to the unsafe condition revealed 

on the Model 737–400 airplanes. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 

32253, June 6, 2008) Was Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32253, 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. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision 

February 2012, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document. Among other things, Section 

9 describes AWL No. 28–AWL–101, 

‘‘Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational 

Test, of Section D.2., Engine Fuel 

Suction Feed System,’’ 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 

32253, June 6, 2008). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

previous NPRM and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Requests To Clarify if Engine Fuel 

Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu of 

the Operational Test 

Airlines for America (A4A) on behalf 

of its member American Airlines (AAL), 

Japan Airlines (JAL), Air New Zealand 

(ANZ), British Airways (BA), and 

Boeing asked that we clarify the engine 

fuel suction feed test procedure in the 

airplane maintenance manual (AMM) as 

an option to performing the operational 

test in the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32253, June 6, 2008). AAL and BA asked 

that we consider adding the engine fuel 

suction feed manifold leak-test 

procedure specified in the AMM task 

card as an option to performing the 

operational test. AAL, JAL, and ANZ 

stated that Boeing 777 Task Card 28– 

020–02–01 specifies two approved 

procedures to perform the operational 

test, but operators need only one of 

those to perform the test. JAL also stated 

that it has been doing the operational 

test as specified in MPD Item 28–020– 

00 or 28–02–01, as applicable; these 

MPD items identify AMM Task 28–22– 

00–710–802, ‘‘Engine Fuel Suction 

Feed—Operational Test,’’ and AMM 

Task 28–22–15–790–808, ‘‘Engine Fuel 

Feed and Refuel Manifold Leak 

Isolation,’’ at 7,500 flight-hour intervals. 

JAL stated that the two tasks are 

equivalent tests and each would satisfy 

the operations test requirement of the 

previous NPRM. 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

manifold test (Task 28–22–00–710–801) 

is not equivalent to the operational test 

(Task 28–22–00–710–802) for the 

purposes of this proposed action. The 

positive internal fuel line pressure 

applied during the manifold test does 

not simulate the same conditions 

encountered during fuel suction feed 

(i.e., vacuum), and might mask a failure. 

Therefore, we have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request to Extend Compliance Time 

United Airlines (UAL) asked that we 

extend the compliance time in the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32253, June 6, 

2008) from 7,500 flight hours to 7,500 

flight hours or 25 months. UAL stated 

that this extension would provide 

operators the opportunity to do the test 

during maintenance checks. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reason provided; however, Boeing has 

recommended a standardized calendar 

time for that compliance time extension 

of ‘‘Within 7,500 flight hours or 3 years, 

whichever is first.’’ Therefore, we have 

changed this supplemental NPRM to 

revise the maintenance program to 

incorporate the AWL identified in 

Appendix 1 of this AD, which includes 

an interval of ‘‘7,500 flight hours or 3 

years, whichever is first.’’ With the 

exception of including a calendar time 

in the task interval, Appendix 1 of this 

AD is equivalent to AWL No. 28–AWL– 

101, ‘‘Engine Fuel Suction Feed 

Operational Test,’’ of Section D.2., 

‘‘AWLS—Fuel Systems,’’ of Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision 

February 2012, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document. 

Request To Include Corrective Action 

Boeing asked that additional testing, 

better described as corrective action, be 

included in the proposed requirements 

of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32253, 

June 6, 2008). Boeing recommended that 

paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM be 

changed to add corrective actions in 

case the engine suction feed operational 

test is not successful. 

We disagree with the request to 

include corrective action for this 

supplemental NPRM, since the AWL 

already includes that requirement. 

Therefore, we have not changed 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 

32253, 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14724 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

stated that there are no known reports 

of any engine flameout related to events 

on Model 777 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. 

Requests for Changes to Certain 

Maintenance Document References 

Boeing asked that we remove the 

AMM reference to Section 28–22–00 

specified in paragraph (f) of the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32253, June 6, 

2008). Boeing stated that the AMM is 

covered in Boeing 777 Task Card 28– 

020–02–01, and noted that having fewer 

references included lessens the chance 

of errors. UAL asked that we specify 

using the task card or the AMM, but not 

require using both. UAL also noted that 

the AMM reference to the General 

Description section of the AMM is 

incorrect. UAL stated that the correct 

reference is in Section 28–22–00, titled 

‘‘Engine Fuel Feed System— 

Adjustment/Test.’’ ANZ added that, 

since the task cards are extracts from the 

AMM, the previous NPRM should state 

that two methods are approved. BA 

stated that the task card is already 

covered by the AMM, and noted that the 

task card identified in paragraph (g) of 

the previous NPRM applies only to 

Trent powered airplanes. Boeing also 

asked that we consider adding engine 

specific task cards for operational tests 

of the engine fuel suction feed. 

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 

incorporating the requested changes 

because we have mandated an FAAapproved document instead, which 

should eliminate these issues. We have 

made no change to the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Requests To Allow the Use of Later 

Revisions of the Maintenance 

Documents 

ANZ, BA, 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 Revise Costs of Compliance 

Section 

AAL asked that the cost estimate be 

changed. AAL stated that the cost 

estimate specified in the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32253, June 6, 2008) 

should not reflect labor only, because 

approximately 10 minutes of engine 

run-time will consume roughly 600 

pounds of fuel per operational test. AAL 

noted that for its current fleet of 47 

Model 777 airplanes, this equates to an 

additional 28,200 pounds of fuel 

expended every 7,500 flight hours to 

accomplish the proposed test. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request. Although fuel is used during 

the operational test, we have not 

received data on the amount of fuel 

used during a test. In addition, fuel 

costs vary among operators. Therefore, 

we do not have definitive data that 

would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the fuel used. In any case, 

we have determined that direct and 

incidental costs are still outweighed by 

the safety benefits of the AD. 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 original NPRM 

(73 FR 32253, 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 32253, June 6, 

2008), by proposing to revise the 

maintenance program to incorporate a 

revision to the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section of the MPD 

document. 

This supplemental NPRM proposes to 

require a revision to certain operator 

maintenance documents to include new 

operational tests. Compliance with these 

tests is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). 

For airplanes that have been previously 

modified, altered, or repaired in the 

areas addressed by these tests, the 

operator might not be able to 

accomplish the tests described in the 

revisions. In this situation, to comply 

with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator 

must request approval for an AMOC 

according to the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. The request 

should include a description of changes 

to the required tests that will ensure the 

continued operational safety of the 

airplane. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32253, June 6, 2008), we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 676 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We estimate the following costs 

to comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Maintenance Program Revision.1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ....................................... $85 per test ........................... $57,460, per test. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14725 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions or 

the optional terminating action 

specified in this AD. 

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– 

2008–0618; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–355–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by April 22, 

2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and 

–300ER series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD 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. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

failure of the engine fuel suction feed of the 

fuel system, which, in the event of total loss 

of the fuel boost pumps, 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 the Airworthiness Limitation 

(AWL) identified in Appendix 1 of this AD. 

The initial compliance time for 

accomplishing AWL No. AWL–28–101 is 

within 7,500 flight hours or 3 years after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever is first. 

(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 (j) of this AD. 

(i) Credit for Incorporating Previous 

Maintenance Program Revision 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using AWL No. 28– 

AWL–101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed 

Operational Test, of Section D.2., AWLS— 

Fuel Systems of Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D622W001–9, Revision February 2012, of the 

Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document, provided the revised 

‘‘interval’’ specified in Appendix 1 of this AD 

is incorporated into the existing maintenance 

program within 90 days after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

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

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; 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 206–766–5680; 

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

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14726 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

APPENDIX 1 

AWL No. Task Interval Applicability Description 

28–AWL–101 .................... ALI 7,500 FH or 3 years, 

whichever is first.

ALL .................................. Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test. 

An Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test 

must be accomplished successfully on each engine 

individually. This test is required in order to protect 

against engine flameout during suction feed operations, and must meet the following requirements 

(refer to Boeing AMM 28–22–00): 

Fuel Tank Quantity Limitations: 

Engine No. 1 

a. The Center Tank Fuel Quantity must 

not exceed 5,000 lbs (2,270 kg). 

b. The Main Tank No. 1 Fuel Quantity 

must be between 1,400 lbs–1,600 lbs 

(600 kg–800 kg). 

NOTE: Excess fuel can be transferred 

to Main Tank No. 2. 

Engine No. 2 

a. The Center Tank Fuel Quantity must 

not exceed 5,000 lbs (2,270 kg). 

b. The Main Tank No. 2 Fuel Quantity 

must be between 1,400 lbs–1,600 lbs 

(600 kg–800 kg). 

NOTE: Excess fuel can be transferred 

to Main Tank No. 1. 

Test Procedural Limitations: 

1. The Fuel Cross-Feed Valve must be 

CLOSED. 

2. The APU Selector Switch must be OFF. 

3. Idle Engine Warm-up time of minimum two 

minutes with Boost Pump ON. 

4. Idle Engine Suction Feed (Boost Pump 

OFF) operation for a minimum of five minutes. 

NOTE: APU may be used to start the engines 

provided the Fuel Tank Quantity and Test 

Procedural Limitations are met. 

The test is considered a success if engine operation is maintained during the five-minute 

period and engine parameters (N1, N2, and 

Fuel Flow) do not decay relative to those observed with Boost Pump ON. 

A suction fee system that fails the operational 

test must be repaired or maintained, and 

successfully pass the Engine Suction Feed 

Operational Test prior to further flight. 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–355–AD 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

15, 2013. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05202 Filed 3–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1052; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–CE–014–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft 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 certain Cessna Aircraft Company 

(Cessna) Models 172R, 172S, 182S, 

182T, T182T, 206H, and T206H 

airplanes. That NPRM proposed to 

supersede an existing AD that currently 

requires an inspection of the engine oil 

pressure switch and, if applicable, 

replacement with an improved engine 

oil pressure switch. Since we issued the 

existing AD, we have received new 

reports of internal failure of the 

improved engine oil pressure switch, 

which could result in complete loss of 

engine oil with consequent partial or 

complete loss of engine power or fire. 

The NPRM proposed to increase the 

applicability of the AD and place a lifelimit of 3,000 hours time-in-service 

(TIS) on the engine oil pressure switch, 

requiring replacement when the engine 

oil pressure switch reaches its life limit. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS