38038 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2014–0276, dated 

December 19, 2014, for related information. 

This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2015–1991. 

(2) For Airbus service information contact 

Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; 

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

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; Internet 

http://www.airbus.com. 

(3) For Goodrich service information 

contact Goodrich Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon 

Drive, Chula Vista, California, 91910–2098; 

telephone: 619–691–2719; email: jan.lewis@

goodrich.com; Internet: http://

www.goodrich.com/TechPubs. 

(4) You may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 

2015. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16165 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–2455; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–180–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008–26– 

07, which applies to all McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC– 

8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, 

DC–8–41, DC–8–42, and DC–8–43 

airplanes; Model DC–8–50 series 

airplanes; Model DC–8F–54 and DC– 

8F–55 airplanes; Model DC–8–60 series 

airplanes; Model DC–8–60F series 

airplanes; Model DC–8–70 series 

airplanes; and Model DC–8–70F series 

airplanes. AD 2008–26–07 currently 

requires repetitive inspections of the 

lower skin and stringers at certain 

stations, and corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD is 

intended to complete certain mandated 

programs intended to support the 

airplane reaching its limit of validity 

(LOV) of the engineering data that 

support the established structural 

maintenance program. This proposed 

AD would also require an eddy current 

high frequency (ETHF) inspection for 

cracks of the fastener open holes 

common to the lower skins, stringers, 

and splice fittings at a certain station; 

installation of external doublers and 

fasteners and repetitive eddy current 

low frequency (ETLF) inspections 

around the fasteners for any crack; and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

cracks in the lower skins, stringers, and 

fastener holes of the splice fittings, 

which could result in the loss of 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206– 

766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. It is also available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

2455. 

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–2015– 

2455; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; telephone: 

562–627–5239; fax: 562–627–5210; 

email: Chandraduth.Ramdoss@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2015–2455; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–180–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On December 12, 2008, we issued AD 

2008–26–07, Amendment 39–15773 (73 

FR 78946, December 24, 2008), for all 

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8–11, 

DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, 

DC–8–33, DC–8–41, DC–8–42, and DC– 

8–43 airplanes; Model DC–8–50 series 

airplanes; Model DC–8F–54 and DC– 

8F–55 airplanes; Model DC–8–60 series 

airplanes; Model DC–8–60F series 

airplanes; Model DC–8–70 series 

airplanes; and Model DC–8–70F series 

airplanes. AD 2008–26–07 requires 

repetitive inspections of the lower skin 

and stringers at stations Xw=408 and 

Xw=-408, and corrective actions if 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38039 

necessary. AD 2008–26–07 resulted 

from reports of cracks in the skins and 

stringers at the end fasteners common to 

the stringer end fittings at stations 

Xw=408 and Xw=-408 wing splice 

joints. We issued AD 2008–26–07 to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking in 

the skins and stringers at the end 

fasteners common to the stringer end 

fittings at certain station and wing 

splice joints, which could result in wing 

structure that might not sustain limit 

load, and consequent loss of structural 

integrity of the wing. 

Widespread Fatigue Damage 

As described in FAA Advisory 

Circular 120–104 (http://www.faa.gov/

documentLibrary/media/Advisory_

Circular/120-104.pdf), several programs 

have been developed to support 

initiatives that will ensure the 

continued airworthiness of aging 

airplane structure. The last element of 

those initiatives is the requirement to 

establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the 

engineering data that support the 

structural maintenance program under 

14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the 

result of an assessment of the previously 

established programs by Boeing during 

the process of establishing the LOV for 

The Boeing Company Model DC–8–11, 

DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, 

DC–8–33, DC–8–41, DC–8–42, and DC– 

8–43 airplanes; Model DC–8–50 series 

airplanes; Model DC–8F–54 and DC– 

8F–55 airplanes; Model DC–8–60 series 

airplanes; Model DC–8–60F series 

airplanes; Model DC–8–70 series 

airplanes; and Model DC–8–70F series 

airplanes. The actions specified in this 

proposed AD are necessary to complete 

certain programs to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of aging 

airplane structure and to support an 

airplane reaching its LOV. 

We are proposing this AD to detect 

and correct cracks in the lower skins, 

stringers, and fastener holes of the 

splice fittings, which could result in the 

loss of structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

Actions Since AD 2008–26–07, 

Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 78946, 

December 24, 2008) Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2008–26–07, 

Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 78946, 

December 24, 2008), we have received 

new service information to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of aging 

airplane structure and to support an 

airplane reaching its LOV. The new 

inspection and modification of the left 

and right lower wing skin, stringers, and 

splice fittings will support operation up 

to the DC–8 LOV. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 

DC8–57–104, dated August 18, 2014. 

The service information describes 

procedures for certain airplanes for an 

ETHF inspection for cracks of the 

fastener open holes common to the 

lower skins, stringers, and splice fittings 

at a certain station; installation of 

external doublers and fasteners and 

repetitive ETLF inspections around the 

fasteners for any crack; and corrective 

actions. This service information is 

reasonably available because the 

interested parties have access to it 

through their normal course of business 

or by the means identified in the 

ADDRESSES section of this NPRM. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain all 

requirements of AD 2008–26–07, 

Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 78946, 

December 24, 2008). This proposed AD 

would also require an ETHF inspection 

for cracks of the fastener open holes 

common to the lower skins, stringers, 

and splice fittings at a certain station; 

installation of external doublers and 

fasteners and repetitive ETLF 

inspections around the fasteners for any 

crack if necessary; and corrective 

actions. 

Clarification of Actions for Groups 1–3, 

Configuration 1 Airplanes 

Where the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 

DC8–57–104, dated August 18, 2014, 

specifies repair, this AD also requires an 

inspection and possible other actions. 

Change to AD 2008–26–07, Amendment 

39–15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24, 

2008) 

Since AD 2008–26–07, Amendment 

39–15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24, 

2008), was issued, the AD format has 

been revised, and certain paragraphs 

have been rearranged with new title 

headers. As a result, the corresponding 

paragraph identifiers have been 

redesignated in this proposed AD, as 

listed in the following table: 

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 

2008–26–07 

Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD 

paragraph (e) ............ paragraph (f) 

paragraph (f) ............. paragraph (g) 

paragraph (g) ............ paragraph (h) 

paragraph (h) ............ paragraph (i) 

Explanation of ‘‘RC’’ Steps in Service 

Information 

The FAA worked in conjunction with 

industry, under the Airworthiness 

Directive Implementation Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to 

enhance the AD system. One 

enhancement was a new process for 

annotating which steps in the service 

information are required for compliance 

with an AD. Differentiating these steps 

from other tasks in the service 

information is expected to improve an 

owner’s/operator’s understanding of 

crucial AD requirements and help 

provide consistent judgment in AD 

compliance. The steps identified as RC 

(required for compliance) in any service 

information identified previously have a 

direct effect on detecting, preventing, 

resolving, or eliminating an identified 

unsafe condition. 

For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the following 

provisions apply: (1) the steps labeled as 

RC, including substeps under an RC 

step and any figures identified in an RC 

step, must be done to comply with the 

AD, and an AMOC is required for any 

deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures; and (2) 

steps not labeled as RC may be deviated 

from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program 

without obtaining approval of an 

AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified 

figures, can still be done as specified, 

and the airplane can be put back in an 

airworthy condition. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38040 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts 

cost 

Cost 

per 

product 

Cost on U.S. operators 

Inspection [retained actions from AD 

2008-26-07, Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 

78946, December 24, 2008)].

6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per inspection cycle.$0 $510 $6,120 per inspection 

cycle 

ETHF Inspection [new proposed action] ............. 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 per inspection cycle.$0 $680 $8,160 per inspection 

cycle 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary certain follow-on actions 

that would be required based on the 

results of the proposed inspection. We 

have no way of determining the number 

of aircraft that might need these actions: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Installation of External Doubler .............................. 5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $425 ....................... $20,000 $20,425 

Repetitive ETLF inspection .................................... 8 work-hour × $85 per hour = $680 per inspection 

cycle.

$0 $680 per inspection 

cycle 

For all actions and repairs on Groups 

1–3, Configuration 1 Airplanes, we have 

received no definitive data that would 

enable us to provide cost estimates for 

the on-condition actions specified in 

this proposed AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We 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), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2008–26–07, Amendment 39–15773 (73 

FR 78946, December 24, 2008), and 

adding the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2015–2455; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–180–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by August 17, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2008–26–07, 

Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 78946, 

December 24, 2008). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC–8– 

21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, DC–8–41, 

DC–8–42, DC–8–43, DC–8–51, DC–8–52, DC– 

8–53, DC–8–55, DC–8F–54, DC–8F–55, DC– 

8–61, DC–8–62, DC–8–63, DC–8–61F, DC–8– 

62F, DC–8–63F, DC–8–71, DC–8–72, DC–8– 

73, DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F 

airplanes; certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by certain 

mandated programs intended to support the 

airplane reaching its limit of validity of the 

engineering data that support the established 

structural maintenance program. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks 

in the lower skins, stringers, and fastener 

holes of the splice fittings, which could 

result in the loss of structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (f) of AD 2008–26–07, Amendment 

39–15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24, 2008). 

At the times specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC8–57A102, dated February 12, 

2008, except as provided by paragraph (h) of 

this AD, do the applicable inspections for 

fatigue cracking of the lower skin and 

stringers at stations Xw=408 and Xw=¥408, 

and do all applicable corrective actions, by 

accomplishing all applicable actions 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38041 

specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

DC8–57A102, dated February 12, 2008. Do all 

corrective actions before further flight. 

Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the 

applicable intervals specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC8–57A102, dated February 12, 

2008, until paragraph (j) of this AD is done. 

(h) Retained Exception for Compliance Time 

This paragraph restates the exception 

specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2008–26–07, 

Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 78946, 

December 24, 2008). Where Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC8–57A102, dated 

February 12, 2008, specifies a compliance 

time ‘‘after the date on this service bulletin,’’ 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after January 28, 

2009 (the effective date of AD 2008–26–07). 

(i) Retained Exception for Corrective Action 

This paragraph restates the exception 

specified in paragraph (h) of AD 2008–26–07, 

Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 78946, 

December 24, 2008): If any cracking is found 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC8–57A102, dated February 12, 

2008, specifies to contact Boeing for 

appropriate action: Before further flight, 

repair the cracking using a method approved 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(j) New Inspections and Corrective Action 

(1) For Groups 1–3, Configuration 1 

Airplanes: At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Service Bulletin DC8–57–104, dated August 

18, 2014, except as required in paragraph (l) 

of this AD, do an inspection for any cracking, 

and do all applicable corrective actions using 

a method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this 

AD. 

(2) For Groups 1–3, Configuration 2 

Airplanes: At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Service Bulletin DC8–57–104, dated August 

18, 2014, except as required in paragraph (l) 

of this AD, do an eddy current high 

frequency (ETHF) inspection for any cracking 

of the fastener open holes common to the 

lower skins, stringers, and splice fittings at 

station Xw=408 and Xw=¥408 from stringer 

51 to stringer 65, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin DC8–57–104, dated August 

18, 2014. If any cracking is found, before 

further flight, repair the crack using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(k) New Doubler and Fastener Installation 

and Eddy Current Low Frequency (ETLF) 

Inspection of the External Doubler and 

Corrective Action 

If no crack is found during the inspection 

required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: At the 

applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 

DC8–57–104, dated August 18, 2014, install 

external doublers and fasteners, and do an 

external doubler ETLF inspection around the 

fasteners for any cracking. Repeat the 

external ETLF inspection at the applicable 

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

Boeing Service Bulletin DC8–57–104, dated 

August 18, 2014. If any cracking is found 

during any ETLF inspection required by this 

paragraph, before further flight, repair the 

crack using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(l) Exception to the Compliance Time 

Where Boeing Service Bulletin DC8–57– 

104, dated August 18, 2014, specifies a 

compliance time ‘‘after the original issue date 

of this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD. 

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (n)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to 9-ANM-LAACO-AMOCREQUESTS@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, 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. 

(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2008–26–07, 

Amendment 39–15773 (73 FR 78946, 

December 24, 2008), are approved as AMOCs 

for the corresponding provisions of this AD. 

(5) Except as required by paragraphs (j) and 

(k) of this AD: For service information that 

contains steps that are labeled as Required 

for Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and (m)(5)(ii) apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. An AMOC is required 

for any deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(n) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 

FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; 

telephone: 562–627–5239; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: Chandraduth.Ramdos@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, Long 

Beach, CA 90846–0001; telephone 206–544– 

5000, extension 2; fax 206–766–5683; 

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

may view this referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 

2015. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16154 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1233 

[Docket No. CPSC–2015–0016] 

Safety Standard for Portable Hook-On 

Chairs 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, section 

104 of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), 

requires the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) to 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The Commission is 

proposing a safety standard for portable 

hook-on chairs (‘‘hook-on chairs’’) in 

response to the direction under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the 

Commission is proposing an 

amendment to include an additional 

CFR part in the list of notice of 

requirements (‘‘NORs’’) issued by the 

Commission. 

DATES: Submit comments by September 

15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the 

marking, labeling, and instructional 

literature requirements of the proposed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS