# --'-"'l' 

# <~"

38350 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. HZ/Tuesday, July 24, 2001

### IRules and Regulations



# '-
.-:<, subject to the requirements ofsections

202 and 205 ofthe UMRA. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule was reviewed with regard to the requirements ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act [5US_G 601 

### through 612).The AcUngAdministrator ofFN$ has certified that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number ofsmall entities. This rule makes no changes to the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program meal patterns. However, when certain products are used, this rule would require schools to

use existing methods ofcommunicalioll
to advise children and their parenls of the use ofsuch products.

Executive Order 12372
The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are listed in the Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.555 and 10.553, respectively. Each is subject to the provisions ofExecutive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental cOllsultation with State and local officials.{7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and final rule related notice at 48 FR 29112. June 24,1983.)

Executive Order 12988
This final rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is inlended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict \vith its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the DATESsection ofthis preamble. Prior
to any judicial challenge to the provisions ofthis final rule orthe application ofthe provisions, all applicable administrative procedures
must be exhausted. This includes any administrative procedures provided by State or local governments and, for disputes involving procurements by State agencies and sponsors. any adminislrative appeal procedures to the
extent required by 7CFR Part 3016. For the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, the administrative procedures are set forth under the following regulations: (1) School food authority appeals of State agency findings as aresult ofan administrative review must follow State agency hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.18(q); (2}school food authority appeals ofFNS findings as aresult nf an administrative review must follow FNS hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.30Id)(3}; and (3}State agency appeals of State Administrative Expense fund sanctions (7eFR 235.11(b)) must follow FNS Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7 CFR 235.11(1). Paperwork Reduction Ad

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). the third parly disclosure requirements included in this fmal role were reviewed by the Office ofManagement and Budget. OMB has approved these requirements for part 210 under OMB #0584-0006. The requirements forpart 220 are approved under OMB #0584- 0012.

Lisl of Subjects

7CFR Part 210 Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs, Grants programs-social programs, National School Lunch Program, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Surplus agricultural commodities.

7 GFR Part 220
Children. Food assistance programs, Grant programs-social programs, Nutrition. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. School Breakfast Program.

PART 210-NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM AND PART 220- SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
Accordingly. the interim rule amending 7CFR Parts 210 and 220 which was published at 65 FR 36315 on JUne 8, 2000, is adopted as afinal rule without change.
Daled: July 18, 20D1. George A. Hraley, Acting Administrator. FoodandNutrition Sel'llice. [m Doc.01-18369 Filed 7~Z3-01; 8:45ami

BllUNG CODE3410-3_

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39 [Doc;ketNo.20011-NM-309-AD;Amendment 39-12330; AD20111-14--19]

RIN 2120--AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
AGENCY;

Federal Aviation Administration. DOT. ACTION; Final rule. SUMMARY; This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD). applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. For certain airplanes this AD requires rework ofthe bonding jumper assemblies on the drain tube assemblies ofthe sIal track housing of the wings. For certain olher airplanes, this AD requires repetitive inspections ofthe drain tube assemblies ofthe slat track bousing ofthe wings to find discrepancies, and corrective actions, if necessary. This AD also provides for terminating action for the repetitive inspections. These aclions are necessary 10find and fix discrepancies ofthe bonding jumper assemblies, which could result in an in-tank ignition

source due to electrostatic discharge or lightning. The actions also are necessary to find and fix discrepancies ofthe slat track drain tuhes, which could result in fuel migrating into the tuhes and leaking
onto an engine or exhaust nozzle, and consequent risk of a fire when the airplane is stationary or during low speed taxiing. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe conditions. DATES; Effective Augusl 28, 2001. The incorporation by reference or certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register as ofAugust 28. 2001. ADORESSES;

The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW" Renton, Washington; or at the O£nce of the Federal Register, BOO North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington. DC. FORFURTHER

INFORMATION

CONTACT: Dennis Kammers, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch. ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2956; fax (425) 227-1181- SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION:

A proposal to amend part 39 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14 eFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2000 (65 FR 80796). For certain airplanes thai action---£.roposed to require rework ofthe bondingjtnnper assemblies. For certain other airplanes, that action proposed to require repetitive inspections ofthe drain tube assemblies ofthe slat track housing of

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 142

### ITuesday, July 24, 2001/Rules and Regulations 38351

the wings to find discrepancies, and corrective actions, ifnecessary. That action also provides forterminating action forthe repetitive inspections,

Comments
Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the making ofthis amendment. Due consideration has been given to the
comments received.

Extend Compliance Time
Several commenters ask that the compliance time fordoing the terminating action specified in paragraph (b)ofthe proposed rule be extended, as follows. The first comrnenter states that the terminating action specified in paragraph (b) ofthe proposed rule requires compliance within 6,000 flight hours or 18months after the effective date ofthe AD, whichever occurs first; but currenl Boeing delivery schedules forecast a 12-month delivery time for the required kits, The commenter further slates that they have ordered the material (kits), but the kits have not yel arrived, which affects the commenter's ability to comply with the proposed rule. The commenler proposes to do the terminaling aclion al aheavy maintenance visit as soon as the kits are delivered. but asks that the compliance time be changed to within 48 months after the effective date ofthe ADto allow time for delivery ofthe kits. The
commenter adds that the repetitive visual inspections forthe fuel leak specified in the service bulletin and a compliance time of48 months provide

an acceptable level ofsafety. The second commenter states that the proposed rule, as written, does not take into consideration the amount oftime needed to defuel and purge the fuel tanks. The commenter estimates that approximately 48 hours are needed to

ensure adequate safety before maintenance personnel may enter the fuel tanks. The commenter does not specify achange to the compliance time, but states that the time given to do the terminating action should be extended
to allow forproper airplane scheduling. The third commenter states that the compliance time fordoing the terminating action as specified in paragraph (b) ofthe proposed rule corresponds to amaintenance planning document "C" check interval, findis unreasonable. The commenler notes that the cracking ofthe slat track housing drain tubes is due to airframe vibration, which isrelated to flight hours, not caLendar lime. The commenter adds that

_ the terminating action was considered optional based on ongoing inspections specified in the referenced service bulletin. The requirement to rework the drain tubes within 18months after the effective date ofthe ADwill not allow adequate time for airlines lo obtain the necessary parts and do the rework within existing planned maintenance intervals, and does not atlow for escalated maintenance programs. The
commenter notes thal the rework cannot be adequately done within planned maintenance outside ofa "C" required
to drain and vent the fuel tanks prior to tank entry. Additionally, there will be considerable impact on the airline operation when airplanes are scheduled forrework outside ofroutine maintenance checks. The cornmenter proposes that the calendar time limit for the terminating action specified in paragraph (b) ofthe proposed rule be extended to 24 months (the equivalent ofa scheduled "C" check), The
commenter wants the flight hour threshold specified in paragraph [b)to remain the same, which means the actual operating period forthe airplane prior to rework is unchanged. The fourth commenter states that they

use Maintenance Planning Document MPD 57-50-o0-A to inspect their airplanes at the enroute check before
every flight. The commenter notes that this inspection isadequate to find fuel leaks, and no leaks have been found during these inspections. The
commenter plans to do the terminating action specified in the proposed ruLeat the next heavy maintenance check per the normal defueling requirements of the MPD. The MPDtask to defuel is at the 4C check, 72-month interval. The
co=enter adds that a72·month compliance time could minimize their
cost impact. The fifth commenter states that since the terminating action in the proposed rule was optional in the service bulletin referenced in paragraph (b) ofthe proposed rule, kHswere ordered only

on demand as the operators planned their maintenance action. Since the proposed rule mandates that the terminating action be done within 18 months, there is a shortage ofparts. The manufacturer has delivered 176 kits to date, and currenlly there are only 2 kits in supply, with 200 kits on order that

are due to arrive in July 2001. The
commenter adds that they will not be able to get enough kits for all 671 airplanes within the 1B-month compliance time. The commenter also
states that the repeat inspection at intervals not to ex.ceed 500 llight hours,

as specified in paragraph (a)ofthe proposed rule, maintains an adequate level ofsafety until the terminating action can be done. The commenter notes tbat there have not been any reported leaks atthe slat track drain tube location since the proposed rule

was issued. The commenter asks that the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)ofthe proposed rule be changed to within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date ofthe AD, whichever comes first, to allow operators lime to obtain the necessary parts, The FAA concurs with the
commenters that the compliance time required by paragraph (b) ofthe final rule should be ex.tended somewhat to

ensure that enough parts are available to do the required actions within the specified compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time forthe terminating action required by the final rule, we considered not only the degree ofurgency associated with addressing the unsafe condition, but the practical aspect ofincorporating the required drain tube modification on the Model 767 fleet in atimely manner. Other factors included in the determination ofan acceptable compliance time are that we informed lhe Air Transporl Association in March 1998 ofour plans to mandate appropriate service information to alleviate the unsafe condition, and affected operators have had access to the service bulletin that was revised to add the terminating modification since December 1998, Therefore, operators have had time to incorporate into their individual maintenance plans the inspections and terminating action required by this final rule, Itis our intent in this final rule to have the terminating action done within the time frame ofa 'C' check maintenance interval. We look the commenters' recommendations into
account. as well as the time necessary to do the terminating action. and we find that a 24-month compliance time should correspond with the regular maintenance schedules ofthe majority ofaffected operators, An extension of the compliance time to 24 months will
not adversely affect safety because the inspections required hy paragraph (a) of the frnal rule will provide an acceptable level ofsafety until the terminating action required oy paragraph (b)isdone. Paragrapo [b)ofthe final rule has been changed accordingly. Inresponse to the commenters'

concerns that parts will not be available forinstallation within the compliance time required by the final rule, we have conflfmed with the manufacturer lhat parts will be available to support a compliance time of24 months after the effective date ofthis final rule.

### 38352 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. HZ/Tuesday, July Z4, ZOOt/Rules and Regulations

In response to the third commenter's
statement that the cracking ofthe slat tracK housing drain tubes is due 10 airframe vibration, which is related to night hours, not calendar time; our delermination is that the drain tubes failed in service due to corrosion. Separate Rulemaking Actions
One commenter asks that Boeing Service Bulletins 767-57A0060, Revision 1, and 767~57-o066, referenced in the proposed rule as the appropriate sources ofservice information for accomplishment ofthe actions, be addressed in two separate rulemaking actions. The commenter slates that these two service bulletins do
not address the same discrepant condition and should nol be grouped together in one proposed rule. The FAA does not concur. We agree that two unsafe conditions do exist with the same drain tube installatioIl, but we consider it acceptable to address both conditions in OIlerule. The reasons for Ihis are as follows: Boeing Service Bulletin 767- 57A0060, Revision 1, provides procedures for repetitive visual inspections ofthe drain tube assemblies ofthe slat track housing ofthe wings to find discrepancies. Such discrepancies may lead to an airplane fire as a result offuel leakage onto an engine or exhaust nozzle. The service bulletin also provides procedures for replacement of the existing drain tube assembly with a newly designed assemhly that would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0066 provides procedures for modification of the bonding jumper assembly on the drain tube assemhly ofthe slat track housing ofthe wings. An earlier production installation ofthe bonding assembly on the newly designed drain tube assembly did not meet the current bonding specifications. Those airplanes with the earlier production installation
must have the bonding provisions modified to protect against an in-tank ignition source due to electrostatic discharge or lightning. incorporation of this service bulletin wiJI bring affected airplanes into the same configuration as those airplanes modified by Service Bulletin 767-57 A0060. Clarification of the related procedures in these two service bulletins was provided in the preamble ofthe proposed rule.

Revise Preamble Language
One commenter states that the Summary and Discussion sectiom orthe proposed rule should be changed to explicitly state that only the numbers 5 and 8 inboard slat track housing drain locations are affected by the proposed rule. The commenter adds that it also should be explicitly stated that visual inspections are to be done at the exterior lower wing surface drain locations, as shown in Figure 2 ofBoeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1, located on page 21. The FAA concurs with these
comments and acknowledges that the description ofthe area (numbers 5 and Binboard) ofthe drain assembly ofthe slat track housing affected could have been more specific in the Summary and Discussion sections. but the Discussion section is not restated in this final rule. The intent ofthe Summary section of the final rule is to provide a brief explanation ofthe unsafe condition and the actions necessary to find and fix any discrepancies. We have revised the Summary section, as well as the other applicable sections in this final rule, to further clarify the unsafe condition and the specified actioIlS. One commenter asks that the Differences section ofthe proposed rule be changed. Tbe commenter points out that there is atypographical error in the MPD section number that is specified in the Differences, the correct number is Section 57-50-oo-A. We concur that a typographical error in the Differences section resulted in an incorrect reference to Section 57-59- oo-A ofthe MPD, instead ofthe correct reference to Section 57-5o-Do-A. But this final rule does not restate the Differences section ofthe proposed rule wherein the commenter has requested changes. That difference merely stated that the proposed rule would require accomplishment ofthe initial and repeat visual inspections regardless ofearlier accomplishment ofthe inspection specified in the MPD.

Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Qne commenter states that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1, describes the Boeing 767 MPD, Section 57-50-o0-A, as an acceptable

means to inspect and detect damage and/or fuel leakage, as an alternative to the visual inspection specified in Part I ofthe service hulletin. The commenter asks that the FAA confam that the MPD

can be used instead ofdoing the visual inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule. The FAA does not concur. As stated in the Differences section ofthe proposed ruLe, discussed previously, the final rule requires accomplishment of the initial and repeat visual inspections regardless ofearlier accomplishment of the inspection specified in the MPD. This is necessary because the inspection in the MPD does not require a minimum
amount offuel in each wing tank, hut the visual inspections described in Part Iofthe service bulletin specify a minimum of4,400 gallons offuel in each wing tank to ensure adequate fuel
coverage over the drain tubes during the fuel leakage check.

Cost Impact

One commenter states that the number ofwork hours estimated for doing the actions in the proposed rule,

as specified in the service bulletins, are

more accurate than the number ofwork hours specified in the cost impact section ofthe proposed ruLe. The
commenter notes that the estimate for replacement ofthe drain tube assemblies as specified in the proposal is 12 work hours, but the estimate specified in the applicable service bulletin is 40 work hours for the replacement. The estimate for rework of the bonding jumper assemblies specified in the proposal is 4 work hours, but the estimate specified in the applicable service bulletin is 25 work hours. The commenter asks that the work hours estimated in the service bulletins be used in the Cost Impact section ofthe proposed rule.
The FAA does not concur. The cost impact information (below) estimates only the "direct" costs ofthe specific actions required by this final rule. The number ofwork hours necessary to do the required actions was provided to us by the manufacturer. based on the data available to date. We recognize that in doing the actions required by this final rule, operators may incur "incidental"
costs in addition to the "direct" costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include Incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and closeup; planning time; or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate. Further, because ADs require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions, they
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be incurred hy operators. However, because ofthe general obligation ofoperators to maintain and operate airplanes in an airworthy condition, this cost estimate is inaccurate. Attrihuting those costs to the requirements ofthis rmal rule is unrealistic because in the interest of maintaining and operating safe airplanes, operators would do the required actions even ifthey were not required to do the final rule.

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. HZ/Tuesday, July Z4, 

### ZOOI/Ruies and Regulations 38353

Conclusion
After careful review ofthe available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption ofthe rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope ofthe AD.

Cost Impact
There are approximately 745 airplanes ofthe affected design in the worldwide neet. The FAA estimates that 275 airplanes ofU.S. registry will be affected by this AD. For airplanes listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1 (228 U.S.-registered airplanes): [twill take approximately 1 work hour per airplane
to accomplish the required inspection,
at an average labor rate of$60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact ofthe required inspection on U.S. operators is estimaled to be $13,680, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Itwill take approximately 12work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement ofthe drain tube assemblies specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0050. Revision 1, at an average labor rate of$60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately 55,236 per airplane. Based on these fi.:,uures,the cost impact ofthe required replacement on U.S. operators is estimated to be Sl.357 .966, or $5,956
per airplane. For airplanes listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0068, (47 U.S.- registered airplanes): Itwill take approximately 4work hours per airplane to accomplish the required rework ofthe bonding jumper assemblies, at an average lahar rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will
cost approximately 5322 per airplane. Based on these figures. the cost impact ofthe required rework on U.S. operators is estimated to be 526.414, or $562 per airplane. The cost impaci figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements ofthis AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future 

### ifthis AD

were not adopted. The cosl impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time
necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidenlal costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will nol have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States,

or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment Therefore. it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a "significant regulatory actioo" under Executive Order 12866; (2)is not a "significant rule" under 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 subslantiai number ofsmall entities under the criteria ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act. Afinal evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy ofit may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Suhjects in 14 CFR Pari 39
Air transportation., Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation 

### by reference, Safety. Adoption ofthe Amendment Accordingly. pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator. the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14 eFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39-AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation forpart 39 continues to read as follows: Autbority: 49 U.S.c. 106[g].40113,4'1701.
§39.13 (Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
2001-14-19 Boeing: Amendmeul 39-12330. Docket2000-NM-309-AD. Applicability

..Model 757series airplanes, line numbers 1through 757inclusive, certificated in any category. Note 1:Tbis ADapplies toeach llirplane identified inthe preceding applicability provisiou, regardless ofwhether itbasbeen modified, altered, orrepaired inthe area subject totherequirem"nts ofthis AD.l"or airplanes that bave beenmodified, altered, or repaired sothat theperformance ofthe requirements ofthis ADisaffected, the ownerfoperator must request approval for ilJl alternative method ufcompliance in accordance with pamgmph (d]ofthis AD. The request should include an assessmeot of the effectofthe modification, alteration, or nJpairon theunsafe condition addressed by this AD:and, ifthe unsafe condition has not heen ",liminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it. Compliance; Required asindicated. unless accomplished previously. '1'0fUldand fixdiscrepancies [bonding, loosefittings. cracking) ofthe bonding jumper assemblies. wbich could msult inan in·tank iguition source due toelectrostatic discharge orlightning: and ofthe slat lrlIck drain tubes. which could result infuel migrating into the tubes and leaking onlOan engine orexhaust nozde, and consequent riskofafirewhen theairplane is stationary

orduring lowspeed taxiing; accomplish the following: Repetitive InspeclionslCorrective Actinn 1'1) Forairplanes listed in BoeingServtce Bulletin 757-57A0060, Revisiou 1,dated December 31, 199B:within 500fligbthnurs after theeffective date ofthis AD:Do B general visual inspetlton ofthe drain tube assemblies ofthe slat track:housings ofthe wings to find discrepancies (loose fittings. cracked tubes, fuel leaks), per PartIufthe Accomplishmenllnstructions ofthe service bulletin. (1)Ifany discrepandes arefound, hefor~ further flight. rework the drain tube assembly perPertIIofthe Accomplishment Instructions ofthe service bulletin; repeatlhe inspection atintervals not toexceed 500 flighthuurs until accomplishment ufthe requirements inparagraph {blofthis AD. [2)Ifnodiscrepanci..s arefound, ~peat the inspection thereafter atintervals notto exceed 500flight hours. until accomplishment ofthe requirements in paragraph {hiofthis AD. Nole2: Forthe purposes ofthis AD.a genOJral visual inspection is defined as: "A vis<.lel examination ofan interior orexlerior
area, installation. orassembly tofind obvious damage. failure, orirregularity, This levelof inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions sucb asdaylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, ordrop-light and may require removal oropening ofaccess panels

ordoors. Stands, ladders. orplalfonns may berequired togainproximity tothe area being checked." Tenntnating Action rorRep"titive Inspections (h)Forairplanes specified inparagraph {a] ofthis AD.within 6.000flighthours or24 months after the effective date ofthis AD. whichever occurs first: Replace the drain tube assemblies ofthe slat track housings of the wiugs (including general visual inspection and repair] per Part 1I1ofthe Accomplishment Instructions ofBoeing Service Bulletin 767--57AOO60, Revision 1. daled December 31,1998. Any applicable repair mustbeaccomplis bed prior 10further flight. Accomplishment ofthis paragraph terminates the repelitive inspections required byparagraph (a)ofthis AD.

### 38354 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. H2/Tuesday, July 24, ZOOt/Rules and Regulations

Rework ofBonding Jwnper Assemblies (cl~'orairplanes listed in BoeingService BuUetin 767-57-0068, dated September 16, 1999;within 5,000 flightcyde5 or22month5 afterthe effective date ofthi5AD,whichever occur5 fir~l;Rework the bonding jumper assembly ofthedrain tube a5semblies ofthe slattrack housing ofthe wings [including general visual in5pection and repair) per the Accomplishment Instructions ofthe service bulletin. Anyapplicable repair must be accomplisbed prior tofurther flight. Accomplishment ofthis paragraph terminates the requirements ofthis AD.

Alternative Methods ofCompliana: [d)Anultllrnative method ofcompliance or adjustment ofthe compliancc time that provides an acceptable level ofsafaty maybe used ifapproved byth" Manager, Seattle Aircuft Certification Office(ACO),FAA. Operators shall send their requests through

anappropriate FAAPrincipal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then 5endittothe Mauager, Seattle ACO. Note3:Information coocerning the existence ofapproved aitemulive methods of compliance with this AD.ifany. maybe obtained fromthe Seattle ACO.
Spedal Flight Pennit [e)Special flight permits milYbeissued per sections 21.197 and 21.199 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR21.197and 11.1(9) tooperate the airplane toaLocation where the requirement5 ofthis ADcanbe accomplished. In&llrponttion by Refenmce [I)The actions sbaHbedone in accordance with Boeing Stlrvice Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1.duted December 31, 1998. and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0068. dated September 16. 1999;asapplicable. This incorporation byreference was approved by theDirector ofthe Federal Registerin accordance with 5 V.S.C.552(a)and 1CFR part 51.COpillS

may beobtained FromBoeing Commen:ial Airplane Group. P.O. Box3707, Seattle, Washington 98114-2207. Copies may beinspected atthe FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; oratthe OfficeortheFederal Register, 800North Capitol StIeet, NW.,suite 700,Washington. DC.
EfTccli~eDale Ig]This amendment becomes effective on August 28, 2001.
issued inRenton. Washington, OnJuly 12.

2001. ViL.Lipski, Manager, Tmnsport. Airplone Direcwmte, Aircmft Certification Service. [FRDoc.01-18016 Filed 7-23-01; 8:45ami

81LUNG COOE ~911)-.13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-NM-327-AD; Amendment 39-12331; AD 2001-14--20]

RIN 212G-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 Series Airplanes

AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule.

sUMMARY:

This amendment adopts a
new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737- 100 and -200 series airplanes, that requires repetitive inspections to find fatigue cracking in the main deck floor beams located at certain body stations, and repair, ifnecessary. This AD also provides for optional terminating action for lhe repetitive inspections. This AD is prompted by reports ofincidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design life goal. This AD relates to the recommendations oflhe Airworthiness Assurance Task force assigned to review Model 737 series airplanes, which indicate that, to assure long term continued operational safety, various structural inspections should be accomplished. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure ofthe main deck floor beams at certain body stations due to fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid decompression and consequent reduced conirollability ofthe airplane. DATES:Effective August 28, 200l. The incorporation by reference of certain publications iisted in the regulations is approved by the Director oflhe Federal Register as ofAugust 28, 200l. ADDRESSES:

The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration [fAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW

.. Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. FORFURTHER

tNFORMATION

CONTACT: Scott Fung, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch. ANM-120S, fAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue. SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone 1425) 227-1221; fax (425) 227-1181. SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION;

A proposal to amend part 39 ofthe federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 15. 2001 (66 FR 10390). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to find fatigue cracking in the main deck floor beams located at certain body stations. and repair, if necessary. Tbat action also proposed to provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the making ofthis amendment. Due consideration has been given to lhe
comments received.

Extend Compliance Time
Dne commenter asks that the compliance time for the detailed visual inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the proposal be extended. The
commenter states that the sen'ice bulletin specified in the proposed rule is listed in Boeing Document 06-38505, which is titled "The Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification and Inspection Program," hereinafter referred to as the "Boeing Document." The cornmenter notes that previous ADs issued against bulletins included in this document contain provisions to minimize the impact ofthe ADs. To be consistent with previous ADs, the
comrnenter suggests that a IS-month phase-in period be implemented before the issuance ofthis proposed rule. The FAA concurs. This £inal rule relates to the recommendations ofthe Airworthiness Assurance Task Force assigned to review Model 737 series airplanes, which indicate that, to assure long term continued operational safety. various structural inspections should be accomplished per the Boeing Document. To be consistent with the other inspections required by the Aging Airplane Program, we have extended the compliance time in paragraph (a) of this AD to within 6,000 flight cycles or 15 months after the effective date ofthis AD, whichever occurs later. The same commenter asks that the initial inspection specified in paragraph (a) ofthe proposed rule be done within 10.000 flight cycles after the effective date ofthe AD, instead ofwithin 6,000 flight cycles. The commenter slates that, due to the fact that the proposed rule requires a repetitive inspection interval that must be accomplished at a 'C' check