Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16741 

indications that normally require 

discrimination from primary water 

stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) 

flaws. 

(ii) The specimen set must have a 

minimum of ten (10) flaws that provide 

an acoustic response similar to that of 

PWSCC indications. All flaw depths in 

the specimen set must be greater than 10 

percent of the nominal pipe wall 

thickness. A minimum number of 30 

percent of the total flaws must be 

connected to the outside diameter and 

30 percent of the total flaws must be 

connected to the inside diameter. 

Further, at least 30 percent of the total 

flaws must measure from a depth of 10 

to 30 percent of the wall thickness and 

at least 30 percent of the total flaws 

must measure from a depth of 31 to 50 

percent of the wall thickness and be 

connected to the inside or outside 

diameter, as applicable. At least 30 

percent, but no more than 60 percent, of 

the flaws must be oriented axially. 

(iii) The procedures must identify the 

equipment and essential variable 

settings used to qualify the procedures. 

An essential variable is defined as any 

variable that affects the results of the 

examination. The procedure must be 

requalified when an essential variable is 

changed to fall outside the 

demonstration range. A procedure must 

be qualified using the equivalent of at 

least three test sets that are used to 

demonstrate personnel performance. 

Procedure qualification must require at 

least one successful personnel 

performance demonstration. 

(iv) The test acceptance criteria for a 

personnel performance demonstration 

must meet the detection test acceptance 

criteria for personnel performance 

demonstration in Table VIII–S10–1 of 

Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 

10. Examination procedures, equipment, 

and personnel must be considered 

qualified for depth sizing only if the 

root mean square (RMS) error of the 

flaw depth measurements, as compared 

to the true flaw depths, does not exceed 

1/32-inch (0.8 mm). Examination 

procedures, equipment, and personnel 

must be considered qualified for length 

sizing if the RMS error of the flaw 

length measurements, as compared to 

the true flaw lengths, does not exceed 1/ 

16-inch (1.6 mm). 

(5) If flaws attributed to PWSCC have 

been identified, whether acceptable or 

not for continued service under 

Paragraphs -3130 or -3140 of ASME 

Code Case N–729–1, the reinspection 

interval must be each refueling outage 

instead of the reinspection intervals 

required by Table 1, Note (8) of ASME 

Code Case N–729–1. 

(6) Appendix I of ASME Code Case 

N–729–1 must not be implemented 

without prior NRC approval. 

(E) Reactor Coolant Pressure 

Boundary Visual Inspections. (1) All 

licensees of pressurized water reactors 

shall augment their inservice inspection 

program by implementing ASME Code 

Case N–722 subject to the conditions 

specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(E)(2) 

through (4) of this section. The 

inspection requirements of ASME Code 

Case N–722 only apply to components 

fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 

materials not mitigated by weld overlay 

or stress improvement. 

(2) If a visual examination determines 

that leakage is occurring from a specific 

item listed in Table 1 of ASME Code 

Case N–722 that is not exempted by the 

ASME Code, Section XI, IWB–

1220(b)(1), additional actions must be 

performed to characterize the location, 

orientation, and length of crack(s) in 

Alloy 600 nozzle wrought material and 

location, orientation, and length of 

crack(s) in Alloy 82/182 butt welds. 

Alternatively, licensees may replace the 

Alloy 600/82/182 materials in all the 

components under the item number of 

the leaking component. 

(3) If the actions in paragraph 

(g)(6)(ii)(E)(2) of this section determine 

that a flaw is circumferentially oriented 

and potentially a result of primary water 

stress corrosion cracking, licensees shall 

perform non-visual NDE inspections of 

components that fall under that ASME 

Code Case N–722 item number. The 

number of components inspected must 

equal or exceed the number of 

components found to be leaking under 

that item number. If circumferential 

cracking is identified in the sample, 

non-visual NDE must be performed in 

the remaining components under that 

item number. 

(4) If ultrasonic examinations of butt 

welds are used to meet the NDE 

requirements in paragraphs 

(g)(6)(ii)(E)(2) or (g)(6)(ii)(E)(3) of this 

section, they must be performed using 

the appropriate supplement of Section 

XI, Appendix VIII of the ASME Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of March, 2007. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Luis A. Reyes, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. E7–6379 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27768; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–174–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330 and A340 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 all 

Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. 

This proposed AD would require 

revising the Airworthiness Limitations 

Section of the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness to incorporate 

new limitations for fuel tank systems. 

This proposed AD results from fuel 

system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent the potential of ignition 

sources inside fuel tanks, which, in 

combination with flammable fuel vapors 

caused by latent failures, alterations, 

repairs, or maintenance actions, could 

result in fuel tank explosions and 

consequent loss of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 7, 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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16742 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2007–27768; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–174–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 you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

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

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 

The FAA has examined the 

underlying safety issues involved in fuel 

tank explosions on several large 

transport airplanes, including the 

adequacy of existing regulations, the 

service history of airplanes subject to 

those regulations, and existing 

maintenance practices for fuel tank 

systems. As a result of those findings, 

we issued a regulation titled ‘‘Transport 

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design 

Review, Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements’’ (66 FR 23086, May 7, 

2001). In addition to new airworthiness 

standards for transport airplanes and 

new maintenance requirements, this 

rule included Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’

Amendment 21–78, and subsequent 

Amendments 21–82 and 21–83). 

Among other actions, SFAR 88 

requires certain type design (i.e., type 

certificate (TC) and supplemental type 

certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate 

that their fuel tank systems can prevent 

ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This 

requirement applies to type design 

holders for large turbine-powered 

transport airplanes and for subsequent 

modifications to those airplanes. It 

requires them to perform design reviews 

and to develop design changes and 

maintenance procedures if their designs 

do not meet the new fuel tank safety 

standards. As explained in the preamble 

to the rule, we intended to adopt 

airworthiness directives to mandate any 

changes found necessary to address 

unsafe conditions identified as a result 

of these reviews. 

In evaluating these design reviews, we 

have established four criteria intended 

to define the unsafe conditions 

associated with fuel tank systems that 

require corrective actions. The 

percentage of operating time during 

which fuel tanks are exposed to 

flammable conditions is one of these 

criteria. The other three criteria address 

the failure types under evaluation: 

single failures, single failures in 

combination with a latent condition(s), 

and in-service failure experience. For all 

four criteria, the evaluations included 

consideration of previous actions taken 

that may mitigate the need for further 

action. 

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) 

has issued a regulation that is similar to 

SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated 

body of the European Civil Aviation 

Conference (ECAC) representing the 

civil aviation regulatory authorities of a 

number of European States who have 

agreed to co-operate in developing and 

implementing common safety regulatory 

standards and procedures.) Under this 

regulation, the JAA stated that all 

members of the ECAC that hold type 

certificates for transport category 

airplanes are required to conduct a 

design review against explosion risks. 

We have determined that the actions 

identified in this proposed AD are 

necessary to reduce the potential of 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks, 

which, in combination with flammable 

fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, notified us that an unsafe 

condition may exist on all Airbus Model 

A330 and A340 airplanes. The EASA 

advises that Airbus has issued new fuel 

airworthiness limitations (FALs) to 

address failure conditions for which an 

unacceptable probability of ignition risk 

could exist if specific tasks or practices 

or both are not performed in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s requirements. 

The new FALs are intended to satisfy 

the JAA’s Interim Policy of Fuel Tank 

Safety and SFAR 88 requirements. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued A330 ALS—

Airworthiness Limitations Section and 

A340 ALS—Airworthiness Limitations 

Section, both dated March 23, 2006. The 

Airbus A330 ALS and A340 ALS are 

repositories for stand-alone documents 

that are approved independently from 

each other, and both comprise the 

following documents: 

• ALS Part 1—Safe Life 

Airworthiness Limitation Items 

• ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant 

Airworthiness Limitation Items 

• ALS Part 3—Certification 

Maintenance Requirements 

• ALS Part 4—(Reserved) 

• ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness 

Limitations 

Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 

11, 2006, refers to Airbus A330 Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, Document 

95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 

2006 (approved by the EASA on 

November 17, 2006). Airbus A340 ALS 

Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, 

dated April 11, 2006, refers to Airbus 

A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, 

Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated 

December 19, 2005 (approved by the 

EASA on April 28, 2006). Section 1, 

‘‘Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,’’ of 

Document 95A.1932/05 and Document 

95A.1933/05 describes a certain 

repetitive FAL inspection. A FAL 

inspection is a periodic inspection of 

certain features for latent failures that 

could contribute to an ignition source. 

Section 2, ‘‘Critical Design 

Configuration Control Limitations,’’ of 

Document 95A.1932/05 and Document 

95A.1933/05 identifies critical design 

configuration control limitations 

(CDCCLs). A CDCCL is a limitation 

requirement to preserve a critical 

ignition source prevention feature of the 

fuel tank system design that is necessary 

to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe 

condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is 

to provide instruction to retain the 

critical ignition source prevention 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16743 

feature during configuration change that 

may be caused by alterations, repairs, or 

maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a 

periodic inspection. 

Accomplishing the actions specified 

in the service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. The EASA mandated the 

service information and issued 

airworthiness directive 2006–0205, 

dated July 11, 2006 (for Model A340 

airplanes); and airworthiness directive 

2007–0023, dated January 25, 2007 (for 

Model A330 airplanes); to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes in the European Union. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

These airplane models are 

manufactured in France and are type 

certificated for operation in the United 

States under the provisions of section 

21.29 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 

applicable bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. As described in FAA Order 

8100.14A, ‘‘Interim Procedures for 

Working with the European Community 

on Airworthiness Certification and 

Continued Airworthiness,’’ dated 

August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the 

FAA informed of the situation described 

above. We have examined the EASA’s 

findings, evaluated all pertinent 

information, and determined that we 

need to issue an AD for airplanes of this 

type design that are certificated for 

operation in the United States. 

Therefore, we are proposing this AD, 

which would require revising the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of 

the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness to incorporate new 

limitations for fuel tank systems. 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

proposed actions would take about 2 

work hours per airplane, at an average 

labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the proposed AD for U.S. operators is 

$4,320, or $160 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 adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2007–27768; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–174–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by May 7, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A330–201, A330–202, A330–203, A330–223, 

A330–243, A330–301, A330–302, A330–303, 

A330–321, A330–322, A330–323, A330–341, 

A330–342, and A330–343 airplanes; and 

Model A340–211, A340–212, A340–213, 

A340–311, A340–312, A340–313, A340–541, 

A340–642, and A340–643 airplanes; 

certificated in any category. 

Note 1: This AD requires revisions to 

certain operator maintenance documents to 

include a new inspection and critical design 

configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). 

Compliance with the operator maintenance 

documents 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 and CDCCLs, 

the operator may not be able to accomplish 

the inspection and CDCCLs 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) of this 

AD. The request should include a description 

of changes to the required inspections and 

CDCCLs that will preserve the critical 

ignition source prevention feature of the 

affected fuel system. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from fuel system 

reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent the potential 

of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, 

in combination with flammable fuel vapors 

caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, 

or maintenance actions, could result in fuel 

tank explosions and consequent loss 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. 

Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section 

(ALS) for Model A330 Airplanes 

(f) For Model A330–201, A330–202, A330–

203, A330–223, A330–243, A330–301, A330–

302, A330–303, A330–321, A330–322, A330–

323, A330–341, A330–342, and A330–343 

airplanes: Do the actions specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Within 3 months after the effective date 

of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate 

Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness 

Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined 

in Airbus A330 Fuel Airworthiness 

Limitations, Document 95A.1932/05, Issue 2, 

dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on 

November 17, 2006), Section 1, 

‘‘Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.’’ For the 

task identified in Section 1 of Document 

95A.1932/05, the initial compliance time 

starts from the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, 

and the repetitive inspection must be 

accomplished thereafter at the interval 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16744 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

specified in Section 1 of Document 

95A.1932/05. 

(i) The effective date of this AD. 

(ii) The date of issuance of the original 

French standard airworthiness certificate or 

the date of issuance of the original French 

export certificate of airworthiness. 

(2) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, revise the ALS of the 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to 

incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 

2006, as defined in Airbus A330 Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, Document 

95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 

(approved by the EASA on November 17, 

2006), Section 2, ‘‘Critical Design 

Configuration Control Limitations.’’

Revise ALS for Model A340 Airplanes 

(g) For Model A340–211, A340–212, A340–

213, A340–311, A340–312, A340–313, A340–

541, A340–642, and A340–643 airplanes: Do 

the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Within 3 months after the effective date 

of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate 

Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness 

Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined 

in Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness 

Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, 

dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the 

EASA on April 28, 2006), Section 1, 

‘‘Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.’’ For the 

task identified in Section 1 of Document 

95A.1933/05, the initial compliance time 

starts from the effective date of this AD, and 

the repetitive inspection must be 

accomplished thereafter at the interval 

specified in Section 1 of Document 

95A.1933/05. 

(2) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, revise the ALS of the 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to 

incorporate Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 

2006, as defined in Airbus A340 Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, Document 

95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 

2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 

2006), Section 2, ‘‘Critical Design 

Configuration Control Limitations.’’

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection 

Intervals, or CDCCLs 

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

this AD: After accomplishing the actions 

specified in paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD, 

as applicable, no alternative inspections, 

inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

Related Information 

(j) EASA airworthiness directive 2006–

0205, dated July 11, 2006; and EASA 

airworthiness directive 2007–0023, dated 

January 25, 2007; also address the subject of 

this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

27, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6231 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27777; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–265–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8–53, DC–8–55, 

DC–8F–54, and DC–8F–55 Airplanes; 

and Model DC–8–60, DC–8–60F, DC–8–

70, and DC–8–70F Series 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 airplanes, 

identified above. This proposed AD 

would require a one-time inspection to 

determine the configuration of the 

airplane (tee or angle doubler installed 

on the left and right side of the flat aft 

pressure bulkhead from Longeron 9 to 

Longeron 13). This proposed AD would 

also require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the tee or angle doubler, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This 

proposed AD results from a report 

indicating that numerous operators have 

found cracks on the tee. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

stress corrosion cracking of the tee or 

angle doubler installed on the flat aft 

pressure bulkhead. Cracking in this area 

could continue to progress and damage 

the adjacent structure, which could 

result in loss of structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 21, 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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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: Jon 

Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5322; 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–2007–27777; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–265–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 DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS