Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 8303 

(1) In lieu of the requirements of 

§ 25.1323(c)(1), the following special 

conditions apply: 

VMO to Vmin with the flaps retracted. 

(2) In lieu of the requirements of 

§ 25.1323(c)(2), the following special 

conditions apply: 

Vmin to VFE with flaps in the landing 

position. 

7. Flight Envelope Protection: Normal 

Load Factor (g) Limiting 

In addition to the requirements of 

§ 25.143(a)—and in the absence of other 

limiting factors—the following special 

conditions apply: 

a. The positive limiting load factor 

must not be less than: 

(1) 2.5g for the Electronic Flight 

Control System (EFCS) normal state. 

(2) 2.0g for the EFCS normal state 

with the high lift devices extended. 

b. The negative limiting load factor 

must be equal to or more negative than: 

(1) Minus 1.0g for the EFCS normal 

state. 

(2) 0.0g for the EFCS normal state 

with high lift devices extended. 

Note: This special condition does not 

impose an upper bound for the normal load 

factor limit, nor does it require that the limit 

exist. If the limit is set at a value beyond the 

structural design limit maneuvering load 

factor ‘‘n,’’ indicated in §§ 25.333(b) and 

25.337(b) and (c), there should be a very 

positive tactile feel built into the controller 

and obvious to the pilot that serves as a 

deterrent to inadvertently exceeding the 

structural limit. 

8. Flight Envelope Protection: Pitch, 

Roll, and High Speed Limiting 

Functions 

In addition to § 25.143, the following 

special conditions apply: 

a. Operation of the high speed limiter 

during all routine and descent 

procedure flight must not impede 

normal attainment of speeds up to the 

overspeed warning. 

b. The pitch limiting function must 

not impede airplane maneuvering, 

including an all-engines operating 

takeoff, for pitch angles up to the 

maximum required for normal 

operations plus a suitable margin in the 

pitch axis to allow for satisfactory speed 

control. 

c. The high speed limiting function 

must not impede normal attainment of 

speeds up to VMO/MMO during all 

routine and descent procedure flight 

conditions. 

d. The pitch and roll limiting 

functions must not restrict nor prevent 

attaining bank angles up to 65 degrees 

and pitch attitudes necessary for 

emergency maneuvering. Positive spiral 

stability, which is introduced above 35 

degrees bank angle, must not require 

excessive pilot strength on the side stick 

controller to achieve bank angles up to 

65 degrees. Stick force at bank angles 

greater than 35 degrees must not be so 

light that over-control would lead to 

pilot-induced oscillations. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

15, 2007. 

Stephen Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–3213 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27338; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–148–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model 717–200 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to all 

McDonnell Douglas Model 717–200 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires revising the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section (ALS) of the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness to incorporate new 

removal limits for certain components 

of the flap system and to reduce the 

interval of inspections for fatigue 

cracking of certain principal structural 

elements (PSEs). This proposed AD 

would require revising the ALS of the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness to incorporate reduced 

initial inspection and repeat inspection 

intervals for certain PSEs. This 

proposed AD results from a revised 

damage tolerance analysis. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which 

could adversely affect the structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for the service information 

identified in this proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Rathfelder, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5229; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘FAA–2007–27338; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–148–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or may can visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
8304 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

On August 11, 2003, we issued AD 

2003–17–01, amendment 39–13274 (68 

FR 49686, August 19, 2003), for all 

McDonnell Douglas Model 717–200 

airplanes. That AD requires revising the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of 

the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness, Airworthiness 

Limitations Instructions (ALI), to 

incorporate new removal limits for 

certain components of the flap system 

and to reduce the interval of inspections 

for fatigue cracking of certain principal 

structural elements (PSEs). That AD 

resulted from a revised damage 

tolerance analysis. We issued that AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

certain PSEs, which could adversely 

affect the structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2003–17–01, 

Boeing has made a further damage 

tolerance analysis of certain PSEs on 

Model 717–200 airplanes. The analysis 

was repeated to divide one larger PSE 

into several smaller PSEs and to include 

new inspection procedures. The damage 

tolerance analysis resulted in a 

reduction to the inspection initial and 

repeat intervals of some PSEs and an 

increase to intervals for other PSEs. 

The actions specified by the proposed 

AD are intended to detect fatigue 

cracking of certain PSEs. Fatigue 

cracking, if not detected and corrected, 

could adversely affect the structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing 717–200 

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions 

(ALI), Report MDC–96K9063, Revision 

5, dated February 2006. Among other 

things, Revision 5 of the ALI revises 

intervals for initial and repeat 

inspections for fatigue cracking of 

certain PSEs. Additionally, Revision 5 

updates certain portions of the nondestructive inspection (NDI) techniques 

and procedures, and corrects some 

typographical errors that appeared in an 

earlier revision. Accomplishment of the 

actions specified in the service 

information is intended to adequately 

address the identified unsafe condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to develop on 

other airplanes of the same type design. 

For this reason, we are proposing this 

AD, which would supersede AD 2003–

17–01. This proposed AD would retain 

the requirements of AD 2003–17–01. 

This proposed AD would also require 

operators to incorporate the Boeing 717–

200 ALI, Report MDC–96K9063, 

Revision 5, dated February 2006, into 

the applicable maintenance and 

inspection program. 

Change to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain the 

requirements of AD 2003–17–01. Since 

AD 2003–17–01 was issued, the AD 

format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 

2003–17–01 have been re-identified as 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this proposed 

AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes 

of U.S. registry are affected by AD 2003–

17–01, that it takes approximately 1 

work hour per airplane to accomplish 

the required actions, and that the 

average labor rate is $80 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the cost impact 

on U.S. operators of the actions required 

by AD 2003–17–01 and retained in this 

proposed AD is estimated to be $8,640, 

or $80 per airplane. 

There are about 155 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

This proposed AD would affect about 

121 airplanes of U.S. registry. The new 

proposed maintenance and inspection 

program revision would take about 1 

work hour per airplane, at an average 

labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the new proposed AD to U.S. operators 

is $9,680, or $80 per airplane. 

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 have 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 that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

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

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section 

for a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by removing amendment 39–13274 (68 

FR 49686, August 19, 2003) and adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2007–

27338; Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–

148–AD. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 8305 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by April 12, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2003–17–01. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell 

Douglas Model 717–200 airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Note 1: This AD requires revisions to 

certain operator maintenance documents to 

incorporate new inspections for fatigue 

cracking of principal structural elements 

(PSEs). Compliance with these inspections is 

required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes 

that have been previously modified, altered, 

or repaired in the areas addressed by these 

inspections, the operator may not be able to 

incorporate the inspections 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 (j) of this 

AD. The request should include a description 

of changes to the required inspections that 

will ensure the continued damage tolerance 

of the affected structure. The FAA has 

provided guidance for this determination in 

Advisory Circular (AC) 25–1529–1. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a revised damage 

tolerance analysis. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain 

PSEs, which could adversely affect the 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003–

17–01 

Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section 

(f) Within 180 days after September 23, 

2003 (the effective date of AD 2003–17–01), 

revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section 

of the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness, Airworthiness Limitations 

Instructions (ALI), in accordance with Boeing 

Report MDC–96K9063, Revision 3, dated 

August 2002. 

(g) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of 

this AD: After the actions specified in 

paragraph (f) of this AD have been done, no 

alternative inspection intervals or 

replacement times may be approved for the 

PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in 

Boeing Report Number MDC–96K9063, 

Revision 3, dated August 2002. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section 

Using Revision 5 

(h) Within 180 days after the effective date 

of this AD: Revise the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section of the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness, ALI, in accordance 

with Boeing 717–200 ALI, Report MDC–

96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006. 

(i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of 

this AD: After the actions specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD have been done, no 

alternative inspection intervals or 

replacement times may be approved for the 

PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in 

Boeing 717–200 ALI, Report MDC–96K9063, 

Revision 5, dated February 2006. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

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. 

(3) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

16, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–3170 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27340; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–271–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–10–30 and DC–10–

30F (KC–10A and KDC–10) Airplanes, 

Model DC–10–40 and DC–10–40F 

Airplanes, and Model MD–10–30F 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

10–30 and DC–10–30F (KC–10A and 

KDC–10) airplanes, Model DC–10–40 

and DC–10–40F airplanes, and Model 

MD–10–30F airplanes. This proposed 

AD would require installing bracket 

assemblies and jumper wires in the 

center main wheel well to improve the 

bonding path between the structure 

(wall) of the lower auxiliary fuel tank 

and its internal fuel pumps; measuring 

the electrical resistance between the fuel 

pump housings and the fuel tank 

structure; and doing corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD results 

from fuel system reviews conducted by 

the manufacturer. We are proposing this 

AD to detect and correct an inadequate 

bond between the internal fuel pump 

housings and the structure of the lower 

auxiliary fuel tank. This condition, if 

not corrected, could fail to meet fault 

current requirements and result in a 

potential ignition source that, in 

combination with flammable fuel 

vapors, could cause a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for the service information 

identified in this proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 

telephone (562) 627–5262; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2007–27340; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–271–


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS