```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39943-39950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17031]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0780; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-168-AD; 
Amendment 39-18207; AD 2015-14-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The 
Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes equipped with a main deck side cargo 
door (MDSCD). This AD was prompted by recent testing that indicates 
that intermodal containers, when loaded as cargo, under certain flight-
load conditions, can shift and impact the adjacent fuselage frames. 
This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to 
incorporate limitations for carrying certain payloads. We are issuing 
this AD to prevent intermodal containers loaded in the offset method 
from shifting during flight gust loads and damaging fuselage frames, 
which could lead to the structural failure of the aft fuselage in 
flight and subsequent in-flight breakup of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective August 17, 2015.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0780; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket 
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and 
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven C. Fox, Senior Aerospace 
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone: 425-917-6425; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
steven.fox@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to The Boeing Company 
Model 747 airplanes equipped with an MDSCD. The NPRM published in the 
Federal Register on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71037). The NPRM was 
prompted by recent testing, which indicates that intermodal containers, 
when loaded as cargo, under certain flight-load conditions, can shift 
and impact the adjacent fuselage frames. The NPRM proposed to require 
revising the AFM to incorporate limitations for carrying certain 
payloads. We are issuing this AD to prevent intermodal containers 
loaded in the offset method from shifting during flight gust loads and 
damaging fuselage frames, which could lead to the structural failure of 
the aft fuselage in flight and subsequent in-flight breakup of the 
airplane.

Background

    Intermodal containers are common in the cargo shipping industry and 
transported by ships, trains, and trucks. The focus of this final rule 
is an intermodal container that is nominally 20 feet long, 8 feet wide, 
and 8.5 feet tall. This nominally sized intermodal container includes 
the dimensions of an International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO) container ISO 668-1CC. Because the intermodal containers 
themselves do not meet the requirements of FAA Technical Standard Order 
TSO-C90D, ``Cargo Pallets, Nets and Containers (Unit Load Devices),'' 
the lower surface on these intermodal containers is incompatible with 
most airplane cargo-loading systems (CLSs). These intermodal 
containers, however, can be concentrically loaded on an FAA-approved 
TSO-C90D pallet with a certified net combination and loaded in the 
center of the airplane, restrained by the CLS or a series of straps 
connected to the aircraft structure in accordance with the airplane's 
FAA-approved Weight and Balance Manual (WBM) procedures for cargo that 
is not a Unit Load Device (ULD).
    The WBM is part of the Operating Limitations section of the 
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). In accordance with 14 CFR 21.41, the 
Operating Limitations are part of the airplane type certificate and, 
therefore, can be modified only by changing that certificate; that is, 
by obtaining an amended or supplemental type certificate. Revisions to 
the AFM are approved as AFM supplements, and the approval is based on a 
finding that, with the AFM revisions, the airplane continues to meet 
the applicable airworthiness standards. Operators are required to 
comply with the Operating Limitations by 14 CFR 91.9(a).
    The FAA has become aware that some operators, both domestic and 
foreign, are not loading these containers in the center of the 
airplane, but rather in the standard left and right pallet positions. 
When loaded in this manner, the 8-foot, 6-inch, height of the 
intermodal container interferes with the fuselage, so some operators 
have been transporting these intermodal containers shifted inboard, off 
of the FAA-approved TSO pallets, and attached to the pallet only with a 
net and/or straps. This method of transport is referred to as the 
``offset method.'' The practice of offsetting the intermodal containers 
results in the certified pallet-net combination having slack in the net 
by the amount of the offset. FAA observations have found the offset for 
intermodal containers is as much as 9 inches, with the corresponding 9 
inches of slack in the TSO pallet net.
    Although additional cargo straps have been used to restrain the 
intermodal containers to the pallets, the FAA determined that these 
straps are not effective, and the intermodal container can shift in 
flight. In 2013, a U.S. cargo operator requested permission from the 
FAA to carry intermodal containers on Boeing Model 747 airplanes using 
the offset method--similar to procedures used by other U.S. and non-
U.S. air carriers. Based on the FAA's review of the offset method, it 
denied the operator's request.

Industry Testing of the Offset Method

    In March 2014, some U.S. cargo operators and Boeing conducted a 
series of full-scale tests, witnessed by the FAA, to demonstrate that 
carrying intermodal containers by the offset method could be shown safe 
and compliant to the applicable regulations. The test procedures were 
developed by engineers from Boeing and some U.S. cargo operators, and 
were intended to show compliance for flight loads on Model 747 
airplanes only. The results produced CLS failures and excessive 
deflections. The preliminary test results confirmed the FAA's safety 
concerns.

[[Page 39944]]

    U.S. operators and Boeing conducted additional testing to 
demonstrate that carrying intermodal containers by the offset method 
could be shown to be safe and compliant with applicable regulations. 
This testing used methods from National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 3610, 
with maximum payloads that were reduced from those tested previously. 
The intent was for Boeing to use the test data to develop an 
appropriate loading method that could be incorporated into the Boeing 
Model 747 WBMs. The certified pallet net was not used because previous 
testing showed it ineffective in restraining the ISO container as the 
offset of the container on the pallet introduces slack in the net, with 
the container essentially free to move laterally in the airplane by the 
amount of the offset.
    Significant engineering resources were applied, and a complex 
method of strapping installation and procedures and sequence for 
tightening the straps was developed to preclude the excessive 
deflections experienced during earlier tests. While a few load cases 
were successful, some had very small margins (precluding any reduction 
of the complexity of the nearly 100 straps required). The testing was 
halted after attempts to substantiate vertical loading repetitively 
overloaded the forward and aft CLS restraint locks, and the proposed 
cargo restraining method was deemed unviable.
    FAA engineering from the Transport Airplane Directorate has been 
extensively involved in the testing of offset loading methods for 
intermodal containers with the objective to determine and document a 
safe and compliant methodology that could be the basis for a Boeing 
Model 747 Weight and Balance Supplement for airline use worldwide. 
Testing to date indicates this objective has not been met.
    When positioned in accordance with the WBMs, an intermodal 
container is secured to the CLS pallet along its entire length by 
straps and netting. Offsetting the container has the effect of creating 
slack in the net and straps, except at the ends of the container. As a 
result, when gust loads are encountered, most of the loads are 
transferred to the locks at the ends of the container and are not 
shared with the locks in the middle. This uneven loading has the effect 
of exceeding the structural capability of the locks at the ends of the 
container. This phenomenon quickly failed the forward and aft CLS locks 
during vertical testing, as confirmed by both sets of industry testing.
    At this time, there is no offset method for restraining intermodal 
containers that has been demonstrated to be safe and compliant.

Safety Issue

    The current practice of carrying an intermodal container by the 
offset method is not currently permitted by the Boeing Model 747 WBMs. 
A series of tests has verified that an intermodal container, under 
certain flight-load conditions, can shift in both the outboard and 
vertical directions. This shift by the intermodal container can damage 
as many as ten fuselage frames per container position during flight, 
leading to the structural failure of the aft fuselage in flight, and 
subsequent in-flight breakup of the airplane.
    Normally, the FAA does not issue ADs to address non-compliance with 
existing regulations. But because of the widespread nature of these 
practices, the FAA has determined that issuing an AD is the most 
effective means of addressing this unsafe condition.
    This final rule, therefore, revises the Operating Limitations 
section of the FAA-approved AFM to incorporate limitations on carrying 
certain payloads. As revised, the AFM expressly states the pre-existing 
prohibition on carriage of either (1) intermodal containers nominally 
sized at 20 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 8.5 feet tall, or (2) ISO 668-
1CC containers, if those containers are not concentrically loaded on a 
pallet and restrained to the aircraft in accordance with the FAA-
approved WBMs or WBM supplement.

Explanation of Changes to the Final Rule

    Since issuing the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014), the FAA has 
learned that some operators might regard changes that they make to the 
Boeing Weight and Balance Manual to be ``FAA approved,'' even though 
the operators have not sought FAA approval through the supplemental 
type certificate process, as described in the NPRM. To clarify that 
only changes made through the type certificate process are considered 
``FAA approved,'' we have revised the language of the final rule to 
specifically reference the FAA-approved Boeing type certificate Weight 
and Balance Manual or a Supplemental Weight and Balance Manual approved 
through the supplemental type certificate process. Given the comments 
opposing the proposed AD discussed below, it is apparent that the 
commenters were not confused on this point. Nevertheless, this 
clarification will prevent confusion for any operator in the future.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 
FR 71037, December 1, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014)

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), stated that 
they fully support the intent of the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 
2014).

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): Intermodal 
Containers Are Permitted by WBMs

    The Cargo Airline Association, Atlas Air, International Air 
Transport Association (IATA), National Air Carrier Association (NACA), 
Kalitta Air, LLC (Kalitta), and the Michigan Senate requested that we 
withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014). The commenters 
asserted that offset intermodal containers are permitted by the Boeing 
Model 747 WBMs. The commenters also asserted that the Boeing Model 747 
WBMs permit the restraint of an intermodal container and pallet 
assembly with cargo restraint straps only to the pallet (and not the 
airplane itself), whether or not the container is offset. The 
commenters concluded that the NPRM statement indicating that ``the 
current practice of carrying an intermodal container by the offset 
method is not permitted by the Boeing Model 747 Weight and Balance 
Manual'' is incorrect and completely at odds with Boeing's WBMs. The 
commenters limited their views to only those Model 747 WBMs created by 
Boeing.
    We disagree with the request. Since the commenters did not address 
any supplemental WBMs produced by holders of supplemental type 
certificates (STCs), our response is limited to a discussion of the 
Boeing Model 747 WBMs. As explained below, contrary to the commenters' 
assertions, the Boeing Model 747 WBMs do not permit loading of either 
offset intermodal containers or intermodal containers strapped only to 
the pallet.
    As discussed in the NPRM, in accordance with section 21.41 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.41), the operating limitations 
are part of the airplane's type certificate (TC). The operating 
limitations specified in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs are established by 
the TC holder at the time of type certification as necessary to 
demonstrate that the airplane, when properly loaded, will comply with 
all

[[Page 39945]]

applicable airworthiness requirements. One of these requirements is to 
demonstrate the capability of the airplane to continue safe operation 
when subjected to a range of structural loads that may be encountered 
during operations (14 CFR 25.1519). The Boeing Model 747 WBMs provide 
operators with detailed instructions, including restrictions, on how 
the airplane may be loaded such that after loading and during flight 
the airplane still is in compliance with the operating limitations.
    The Boeing Model 747 cargo airplanes are equipped with a cargo 
loading system, which is part of the airplane's type design and 
consists of roller trays, guides, latches, and locks that restrain the 
cargo to the airplane for flight loads. A Unit Load Device (ULD) is a 
device for grouping and retaining cargo for transit. The Boeing Model 
747 WBMs include, as part of the operating limitations, instructions 
that identify which ULDs may be loaded into the airplane's cargo 
loading system on the main cargo deck of the airplane without 
additional restraint to the airplane's structure.
    Although the actual wording in these manuals varies slightly, all 
Boeing Model 747 WBMs require that, to be carried on the main deck 
without additional restraints, ``certified'' ULDs must conform to FAA 
Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C90, ``Cargo Pallets, Nets, and 
Containers,'' or to National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 3610 (``Cargo 
Unit Load Devices--Specification For''), the document the TSO 
references as a requirement. NAS 3610 is an industry standard used to 
define the required configuration and certification testing for various 
ULDs.
    The types of certified ULDs identified in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs 
are NAS 3610-compliant containers) and pallet-net combinations. 
Containers identified in NAS 3610 are attached directly to the 
airplane's cargo loading system. Intermodal containers, which are the 
subject of this AD, do not meet the standard for NAS 3610 containers. 
For the pallet-net combinations, the cargo is restrained to the pallet 
by a net that attaches to the pallet on all four sides and covers the 
cargo. Under the Boeing Model 747 WBMs, an intermodal container may be 
loaded into a certified pallet-net combination ULD as long as the 
intermodal container is located within the perimeter of the pallet. 
However, as explained in the NRPM, an intermodal container offset from 
its pallet introduces slack in the corresponding net and, therefore, 
does not meet the requirements of NAS 3610 and is not allowed as a 
certified ULD under the Boeing Model 747 WBMs.
    The Boeing Model 747 WBMs require that all cargo other than the 
identified ULDs be restrained to the airplane by straps in accordance 
with instructions specified in the WBMs. The Boeing Model 747 WBMs 
provide detailed instructions that define the specific locations where 
straps must be attached to the airplane structure, as well as other 
information such as maximum weights to be restrained at each location. 
With one recently approved exception,\1\ nothing in the Boeing Model 
747 WBMs or in NAS 3610 allows for the use of straps to restrain cargo 
to the ULD pallet itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The FAA recently approved a supplement to the Boeing Model 
747 WBMs that allows strapping of cargo to a pallet under limited 
circumstances that are not relevant to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, contrary to the commenters' assertions, the Boeing Model 
747 WBMs do not permit loading of either offset intermodal containers 
or intermodal containers strapped only to the pallet. Furthermore, 
neither Boeing nor any of the commenters have shown that the airplane, 
when loaded with offset containers, complies with the applicable 
airworthiness standards of part 25. As discussed in the NPRM, any such 
showing would have to be done by a change to the type certificate in 
accordance with FAA Order 8110.4C.
    We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): History of Safety

    IATA, Kalitta, and the Michigan Senate opposed the NPRM (79 FR 
71037, December 1, 2014), stating that it does not refer to any 
incident or accident. The commenters reported that for more than 40 
years, intermodal containers loaded as offset cargo have been carried 
with no damage to frames.
    We disagree with the commenters' conclusion. As discussed in the 
NRPM, industry and Boeing testing have shown that offset loading of 
intermodal containers can allow the cargo to shift, which would be 
unsafe under certain flight load conditions. (The AD docket contains a 
Boeing presentation summarizing these test results.) The purpose of 
this AD, and all ADs, is to correct an unsafe condition regardless of 
whether that condition has caused accidents in the past.
    Furthermore, in general, the shifting of cargo in flight has 
resulted in numerous incidents and accidents. For example, on August 7, 
1997, Fine Air Flight 101 crashed shortly after takeoff from Miami 
because cargo shifted. Similarly, all evidence indicates that on April 
29, 2013, National Airlines Flight 102 crashed shortly after takeoff 
from Bagram, Afghanistan, because cargo shifted. We have not changed 
this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): Proposal 
Based on Unfounded Principles

    Atlas Air, the Cargo Airline Association, Kalitta, NACA, and United 
Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 71037, 
December 1, 2014) because it misstates an important principle. The 
commenters noted that the NPRM stated that ``the Weight and Balance 
Manual is part of the Operating Limitations section of the Airplane 
Flight Manual (AFM).'' The commenters asserted that a reader could 
infer from this that all content in an airplane manufacturer's WBMs is 
part of the Operating Limitations section of the AFM. The commenters 
contended that since Boeing's Model 747 WBMs contain operating 
procedures in addition to operating limitations, only portions of the 
WBMs are part of the Operating Limitations section of the AFM. The 
commenters also noted that Boeing frequently revises the WBMs, and when 
Boeing does so, Boeing does not amend the type certificate, which the 
commenters assert would be ``a laborious process.''
    We agree with the commenters' proposition that not all of a 
manufacturer's WBM is necessarily part of the AFM operating 
limitations, but we disagree with their assertion that FAA-approved 
loading instructions are not operating limitations. We also disagree 
with the commenters' request to change the rule as originally proposed. 
As provided in 14 CFR 25.1583(c), the WBM is referenced in the AFM and 
contains operating limitations approved under that section. Section 
25.1583(c)(2) requires that the AFM include loading instructions that 
are necessary to ensure loading of the airplane within the weight and 
center of gravity limits, and to maintain the loading within these 
limits in flight. While the Boeing Model 747 WBMs may include 
information other than limitations, the loading instructions discussed 
previously are limitations, and the FAA approved the Boeing Model 747 
WBMs based on a determination that, as operating limitations, these 
instructions were adequate to meet the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1583.
    For many years the FAA has recognized that both the weight and 
balance information and the loading instructions are operating 
limitations.

[[Page 39946]]

For example, in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1581-1, dated July 14, 
1997 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/cb7efbdd420bd265862569b3005479d7/$FILE/AC25-
1581-1.pdf), the FAA stated, in Section 2b(1), ``Any limitations on 
airplane loading associated with the stated weight limitations must be 
included in the AFM or addressed in a separate weight and balance 
document.''
    These loading instructions are the procedures that Boeing 
determined were necessary to load and restrain cargo for flight loads; 
these instructions are used to show compliance with the design 
requirements for the airplane, including the structural capabilities of 
the cargo loading system, airplane floors, and fuselage, and are 
therefore operating limitations. The types of ULDs and methods to 
restrain cargo are limitations provided in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs 
that ensure the airplane structure is not overloaded throughout the 
airplane's defined flight envelope. For this reason, additions to the 
approved list of ULDs or deviations to the structural tie-down 
locations that are not approved through the type certification process 
result in noncompliant and unknown conditions that could result in the 
structural overload to the airplane under certain flight loads.
    Adopting the commenters' argument that these loading instructions 
are not limitations and, therefore, not mandatory would lead to the 
anomalous result that, while the weight and balance limitations are 
mandatory, the means to ensure they are complied with are not.
    Regarding the commenter's statement that Boeing frequently changes 
the WBMs, those changes are in fact changes to the type certificate, 
which are approved by the FAA or its designees. We have not changed 
this final rule regarding this issue.

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): AD Approach Is 
Overly Broad and Burdensome

    Kalitta asserted that the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014) 
appears to assume that the offset configuration is already forbidden 
because it is not explicitly provided for in the Boeing Model 747 
WBMs--i.e., unless the loading of a specific ULD or type of cargo and 
configuration is specifically defined in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs, it 
is prohibited. The commenter asserted that this is a novel 
interpretation and is unduly restrictive, contrary to accepted and 
normal air carrier operations and contrary to the FAA's own guidance 
material, and will have a significant and far-reaching operational and 
economic impact on all U.S. air carriers in the future, no matter what 
kind of aircraft they operate. The commenter stated that the FAA should 
carefully consider the ramifications of adopting a policy of ``what is 
not explicitly allowed is forbidden.'' The commenter stated that this 
approach reaches well beyond the particular matter at hand, and can 
create a regulatory environment that stifles innovation, and requires a 
manufacturer or the FAA to think in advance of every kind of operation 
that may possibly arise, and provide for it in the regulatory 
documents. According to the commenter, this would create an impossible 
burden on government and industry both.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertions. As discussed 
previously, the Boeing Model 747 WBMs define safe and compliant methods 
for loading the airplane. The Boeing Model 747 WBMs provide the 
instructions required by 14 CFR 25.1583, enabling the operators to load 
and restrain cargo in a manner that does not permit the shifting of 
cargo during flight, which could cause damage to the airplane or result 
in a configuration leading to the loss of control of the airplane. As 
discussed previously, these instructions are considered operating 
limitations. Operation of the airplane beyond those limits is not 
permitted by the Boeing Model 747 WBMs. Section 121.135(b)(21) requires 
operators to include in their manuals methods and procedures for 
maintaining the aircraft weight and center of gravity within approved 
limits. The unsafe condition addressed in this AD is a result of 
operators having adopted methods and procedures that are contrary to 
the WBM instructions and, as a result, not within the approved limits.
    Innovations are acceptable provided they meet the limits specified 
in the WBMs. Innovations that exceed those limits must be approved as 
changes to the WBM, as required by subparts D and E of 14 CFR part 21, 
and as provided in FAA Order 8110.4C, dated March 28, 2007 (http://
rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/
d21193af2d37a8ba862570ab0054c104/$FILE/8110.4C_CHG5_Incorporated.pdf), 
which describes the process for obtaining FAA approval for changes to 
the airplane's type certificate. We have not changed this final rule 
regarding this issue.

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): Unrealistic Cost 
Estimate

    Cargo Airline Association, Atlas Air, IATA, NACA, and Kalitta 
alleged that the FAA's determination of the estimated costs to comply 
with the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014) is fundamentally flawed 
because it is based on an unreasonably narrow view of the AD's costs 
and, as a result, the FAA's cost estimate is unrealistically low. The 
commenters concluded that the AD, if issued as proposed, would have 
significant, multi-million dollar cost consequences and competitiveness 
implications for all U.S. Model 747 freighter operators, with no 
appreciable countervailing safety benefits. In particular, the 
commenters stated that when intermodal containers are carried in the 
offset manner, additional cargo can be carried in the adjacent cargo 
pallet positions. The commenters further asserted that if the 
intermodal containers are required to be restrained to the airplane, 
the necessary restraint configuration would preclude the carriage of 
the adjacent positions and that revenue from the adjacent positions 
would be lost.
    We do not agree with the commenters' allegations. As discussed 
previously and in the NPRM, carriage of offset containers is contrary 
to the limitations in the Boeing Model 747 WBMs and, therefore, 
contrary to 14 CFR 91.9(a). The intent of this AD is to require 
operators to revise their AFMs in a manner that eliminates this 
already-noncompliant practice, which we have determined creates an 
unsafe condition. Based on the FAA's determination that this conduct is 
noncompliant, the FAA has already directed individual operators not to 
carry intermodal containers using the offset method.\2\ Issuance of 
this AD fulfills the FAA's international obligations of informing 
foreign airworthiness authorities of the existence of this unsafe 
condition and of the appropriate means for addressing it, as well as 
reinforces the determination discussed previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, a letter dated May 2, 2014, directing Kalitta 
to discontinue this practice is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the cost associated with ceasing noncompliant conduct is 
not attributable to this AD, regardless of how profitable that conduct 
may be. The cost information in AD actions describes only the direct 
costs of the specific action required by the AD--in this case, revising 
the AFM. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, 
operators might incur operational costs in addition to the direct 
costs. The cost

[[Page 39947]]

analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include 
incidental or operational costs such as the time required for planning 
or other administrative actions. Our analysis also would not include 
possible revenue lost as a result of ending noncompliant operations. 
The FAA recognizes that the reason operators carry intermodal 
containers in violation of the Boeing Model 747 WBM limitations is that 
it is more profitable. The amount of revenue that could be generated 
when cargo is carried in a noncompliant manner is almost impossible to 
calculate.
    We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): Economic Impact on 
Small Entities

    Kalitta and the Michigan Senate stated that the NPRM (79 FR 71037, 
December 1, 2014) fails to account for impact on small entities because 
most airlines that would be affected by the NPRM have fewer than 1,500 
employees. The commenters stated that this is a significant economic 
impact by loss of revenue.
    As discussed previously, we have determined that there is no 
significant impact on air carriers in the United States because loading 
offset intermodal containers is contrary to the limitations of the 
Boeing Model 747 WBMs, and is therefore already prohibited. That is, 
whether or not this final rule is issued, the practice of carrying 
intermodal containers in the offset method is not permitted for U.S. 
air carriers as it is a noncompliant and unsafe practice.

Opposition to NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): Inadequate Testing

    Cargo Airline Association, Atlas Air, NACA, IATA, Kalitta, and the 
Michigan Senate criticized the tests discussed in the NPRM (79 FR 
71037, December 1, 2014) that confirmed the FAA's determination that 
loading containers in the offset position is an unsafe condition, 
arguing they were unrealistic or inconclusive. In general, the 
commenters claimed that the tests used configurations of intermodal 
containers and their restraints that are different from those used in 
service and applied pass-fail criteria that were unnecessarily 
stringent.
    We do not agree that the tests were unrealistic or inadequate. A 
detailed discussion of the commenters' technical concerns regarding the 
tests is included in the AD docket.
    In short, the tests of offset intermodal containers discussed in 
the NPRM included a range of configurations, including those that the 
participants, including Boeing and cargo operators, considered 
necessary to show compliance to the regulations, and even a scenario 
using empty containers. The tests demonstrated that offset intermodal 
containers would not be restrained securely for flight loads such as 
heavy turbulence. As discussed previously, loading offset intermodal 
containers is already contrary to the limitations of the Boeing Model 
747 WBMs. If commenters believe that they can show compliance with the 
applicable part 25 airworthiness standards using offset containers, 
they may apply for supplemental type certificates (STCs). Any such 
STCs, if granted, would also be considered as a possible alternative 
method of compliance (AMOC) to this AD.

Request To Delay Issuance of AD Pending Acceptance of New Testing

    Kalitta, NACA, and the Michigan Senate requested that we delay 
issuing a final AD because new testing by Kalitta shows that the offset 
configuration can be used without posing a threat to safety.
    We disagree with the request. The test process and results have not 
been submitted to the FAA for approval. However, if the testing is 
completed and approved, it may serve as the basis for a new STC, which 
we would then consider as a possible AMOC to this AD. We have not 
changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): Unnecessary 
Based on New Operating Specifications

    Cargo Airline Association, IATA, Kalitta, NACA, and the Michigan 
Senate requested that we withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 
2014). IATA recently issued Operating Specification (OS) 6/13 (ULD: 
Operating Specifications). According to the commenters, IATA OS 6/13 
provides guidance for safely handling multiple configurations of offset 
sea-land (intermodal) containers and ensuring the effectiveness and 
ultimate load strength of tie-down arrangements. The commenters 
asserted that offset methods for intermodal containers developed in the 
1970s by some airlines had received Boeing support and approval.
    We disagree with the request. The commenters did not submit data to 
show how IATA OS 6/13 complies with the applicable regulations. 
Further, IATA OS 6/13 documents procedures similar to those found to 
have failed early on in the testing described in the preamble to the 
NPRM. For example, these procedures include strapping the intermodal 
container to the pallet, and not directly to the airplane. In fact, the 
procedures described in IATA OS 6/13 are contrary to the Boeing Model 
747 WBMs for the reasons discussed previously.
    The commenters provided no evidence of Boeing support and approval 
regarding use of offset methods. Boeing's comments did not include any 
statement that offset carriage of intermodal containers without 
restraint directly to the airplane complies with the Boeing Model 747 
WBMs. Neither the FAA nor Boeing has found any evidence that Boeing was 
involved in or aware of the carriage of intermodal containers in the 
1970s.
    We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue, although 
any operator may request approval of an AMOC for use of an STC WBM 
supplement. However, in this case, because IATA OS 6/13 is so similar 
to the documented tested failures, new test data would be required to 
show that the IATA method meets the applicable airworthiness 
requirements to support approval of an STC.

Request To Allow Offset Containers, If Strapped to Airplane

    Atlas Air, Boeing, AirbridgeCargo Airlines LLC (AirbridgeCargo), 
NACA, and UPS requested that the intermodal containers be allowed to be 
loaded offset on the pallet, provided that the containers are 
restrained directly to the airplane by retention straps. A number of 
the commenters stated that this practice is already allowed by the WBMs 
and that they currently use this method.
    We disagree with the request. None of the commenters provided any 
actual data demonstrating a compliant restraint method to the airplane 
for an offset intermodal container. Further, none have demonstrated 
that they currently use a method complying with the Boeing WBMS. The 
Boeing Model 747 WBMs describe how to restrain cargo, offset or not, as 
special cargo restrained to the airplane; however, when the cargo is 
restrained correctly to the airplane, so many straps would be attached 
to so many locations on the aircraft that no cargo could be carried 
adjacent to the offset intermodal container. Thus, the benefit of 
increased capacity gained by installing an offset container would be 
lost. Therefore, the FAA finds it unlikely that operators are actually 
using compliant methods to restrain offset intermodal containers.
    We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue. However, 
under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider 
requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are

[[Page 39948]]

submitted to substantiate that the alternative method would provide an 
acceptable level of safety. These data would need to include the 
compliant restraint methodology.

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014): Unlevel 
Playing Field With International Carriers

    Kalitta and the Michigan Senate requested that we withdraw the NPRM 
(79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014). They asserted that by issuing this AD 
we provide their foreign competitors with a significant competitive 
advantage. Kalitta stated that while the FAA may believe that 
incorporation of these restrictions into an AD will solve the 
competition problem by ``leveling the playing field,'' as they will 
apply to all U.S. carriers, and will be adopted by many foreign 
governments, the agency needs to reconsider this position. The 
commenters added that foreign authorities may or may not adopt the AD 
as written, but they have wide latitude in what sort of AMOCs they will 
permit their carriers to use. The commenters also stated that foreign 
authorities will very likely look to the IATA standards to provide an 
acceptable AMOC, enabling their carriers to continue to operate in the 
very manner that will be foreclosed to U.S. air carriers.
    Kalitta asserted that this ``unexpected gift to foreign airlines'' 
is not necessitated by safety of flight, and is contrary to the policy 
considerations mandated by Congress in the International Air 
Transportation Competition Act (49 U.S.C. 40101), which requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to strengthen the competitive position of 
air carriers to ensure at least equality with foreign air carriers, 
including the attainment of the opportunity for air carriers to 
maintain and increase their profitability in air foreign 
transportation. According to the commenters, this obviously does not 
mean that the FAA should ignore serious safety issues out of concern 
for U.S. carriers' competitive position, but that the agency must take 
account of U.S. carriers' financial health and competitive standing, 
and avoid adopting measures and policies that harm carriers unless they 
are absolutely necessary.
    We disagree with the request. Section 44701 of 49 U.S.C. requires 
the FAA to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other 
things, prescribing regulations and minimum standards for aircraft. In 
addition, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 8, 
Airworthiness of Aircraft (http://www.icao.int/safety/airnavigation/NationalityMarks/annexes_booklet_en.pdf) requires that civil aviation 
authorities of other countries take appropriate action in response to 
FAA ADs. Based on the FAA's determination of the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD, we expect foreign authorities to adopt similar 
requirements. Regarding the potential for other civil aviation 
authorities to adopt IATA's procedures as an AMOC for their ADs, as 
discussed previously, the IATA procedures are similar to those that 
have been tested previously and that the FAA considers to be unsafe. We 
have no reason to believe other authorities would reach a different 
conclusion.
    We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014) or Delay 
Issuance of AD Pending WBM Revision

    NACA and AirbridgeCargo requested that we delay issuance of the AD 
until all new testing is completed. Based on its understanding of the 
current round of testing, NACA stated that there is a strong likelihood 
the Boeing Model 747 WBMs will be revised. AirbridgeCargo proposed that 
further research be done to establish a weight limit for intermodal 
containers. The commenters therefore preferred a revised WBM to an AD, 
which would also allow U.S. cargo carriers to fully compete with 
foreign carriers on a level playing field.
    We disagree with the request. To date, all testing to support a 
revision to the Boeing Model 747 WBMs has been unsuccessful. Although 
there is a current plan for more testing by a U.S. air carrier to 
support an STC application, it is unclear if the testing will be 
successful and when it will be completed. If the testing resumes and 
provides a successful conclusion, and if sufficient data are submitted 
to substantiate that the products or alternative methods would provide 
an acceptable level of safety, the FAA could consider new methods or 
products as acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. 
We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Change Requirement To Revise AFM

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD 
(79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014), which proposed to require revising the 
Operating Limitations section of the AFM. Boeing stated that airlines 
are not able to revise a Boeing AFM. Boeing requested that we change 
the requirement to ``insert a copy of this AD into the Limitations 
section of the AFM.''
    We disagree with the request. Paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 
FR 71037, December 1, 2014) would allow operators to insert a copy of 
this AD into the Limitations section of the AFM. However, operators may 
also comply with this AD by revising the operating limitations. 
Operating limitations are a part of the type certificate for an 
airplane. For many years, we have imposed operating restrictions that 
are necessary to address identified unsafe conditions by requiring 
revisions to the Operating Limitations section of the AFM. For this 
reason, as stated in the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014), we must 
engage in rulemaking (i.e., issuance of an AD) in order to make the 
revisions mandatory for previously type-certificated airplanes. While 
the Boeing Model WBMs are contained in a ``Boeing document'' in the 
sense that Boeing originally produced it, the document, nevertheless, 
is a part of the airplane flight manual that operators must use to 
operate the airplane properly. Of course, those operators that have 
previously revised the required AFM limitations are given credit for 
having previously accomplished the requirements of this AD, as allowed 
by paragraph (f) of this AD. The legal effect is the same: The operator 
is required to comply with the limitations referenced in 14 CFR 
91.9(a). We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Description of Issue Prompting Rulemaking

    Boeing requested that we revise the description of the issue that 
prompted the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014). The NPRM stated that 
recent testing indicates that intermodal containers, when loaded as 
cargo, can shift. While implicitly agreeing that loading offset 
containers is unsafe unless they are restrained directly to the 
airplane, Boeing requested that we change the wording to explain that 
the condition is limited to ``cargo using a TSO-C90 certified ULD.''
    We disagree with the requested change. The SUMMARY section of this 
final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD go on to explain that 
intermodal containers loaded in the offset method are the subject of 
this AD, and the type of ULD does not change the unsafe condition. 
Further, not all Boeing Model 747 WBMs refer to TSO-C90; several refer 
directly to the TSO-C90-required document NAS 3610. We have therefore 
not revised this final rule regarding this issue.

[[Page 39949]]

Request To Delete Reference to TSO Revision Level

    Boeing and UPS stated that the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014) referred to a ``TSO-C90D'' 
pallet. Revision D is the latest issue of TSO-C90, and per the WBMs 
applicable to Boeing Model 747 airplanes, approved ULDs for carriage 
may conform to the TSO-C90 revision to which they were certified. UPS 
recommends revising the Discussion section of the NPRM to remove the 
revision level when TSO-C90 is referenced.
    We agree that the revision level of TSO-C90 does not matter; an 
intermodal container conforms to none of the revision levels. However, 
the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014) is 
not repeated in this final rule. No change to this final rule is 
necessary.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
this AD as proposed--except for minor editorial changes. We have 
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014) for correcting the unsafe 
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 71037, December 1, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision......................  1 work-hour x $85 per                  $0              $85           $8,330
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

2015-14-09 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18207; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0780; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-168-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 17, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, 747SP, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes, 
certificated in any category, equipped with a main deck side cargo 
door (MDSCD).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by recent testing that indicates that 
intermodal containers, when loaded as cargo, under certain flight-
load conditions, can shift and impact the adjacent fuselage frames. 
We are issuing this AD to prevent intermodal containers loaded in 
the offset method from shifting during flight gust loads and 
damaging fuselage frames, which could lead to the structural failure 
of the aft fuselage in flight, and subsequent in-flight breakup of 
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Revision of Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the 
Operating Limitations section of the FAA-approved AFM to include the 
information in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This may be 
accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the Limitations 
section of the AFM.

           Figure 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--AFM Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless approved by the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft Certification
 Office, the carriage of the following payloads is prohibited:

[[Page 39950]]

 
(1) Intermodal containers nominally sized at 20 feet long, 8 feet wide,
 and 8.5 feet tall that are not concentrically loaded on a pallet and
 restrained to the aircraft in accordance with the FAA-approved Boeing
 type certificate Weight and Balance Manual or a supplemental type
 certificate Weight and Balance Supplement.
(2) ISO 668[dash]1CC containers that are not concentrically loaded on a
 pallet and restrained to the aircraft in accordance with the FAA-
 approved Boeing type certificate Weight and Balance Manual or a
 supplemental type certificate Weight and Balance Supplement.
Note: Both payloads 1 and 2 may be concentrically loaded on a pallet and
 netted in accordance with the FAA-approved Weight and Balance Manual
 and then loaded in the center of the airplane and restrained to the
 airplane by the approved center loaded cargo restraint system or
 restrained directly to the airplane, both as defined in the FAA-
 approved Weight and Balance Manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and 
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 
and 21.199), are not allowed if any intermodal container prohibited 
as specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is on board. 
For special flight permits, carriage of freight is not allowed.

(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 paragraph (j) of this AD. 
Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Steven C. Fox, 
Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6425; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
steven.fox@faa.gov.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17031 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```