--'-"'l' <~"

38350 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. HZ/Tuesday, July 24, 2001 I Rules and Regulations

'-

.-:<,

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule was reviewed with

regard to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 US_G 601

through 612). The AcUng Administrator

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 of communicalioll

to advise children and their parenls of

the use of such products.

Executive Order 12372

The National School Lunch Program

and the School Breakfast Program are

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under Nos. 10.555 and

10.553, respectively. Each is subject to

the provisions of Executive 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 of this preamble. Prior

to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of this final rule or the

application of the 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 7 CFR 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 a result of an

administrative review must follow State

agency hearing procedures as

established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.18(q);

(2} school food authority appeals of FNS

findings as a result 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 (7 eFR 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 of Management

and Budget. OMB has approved these

requirements for part 210 under OMB

#0584-0006. The requirements for part

220 are approved under OMB #0584-

0012.

Lisl of Subjects

7 CFR 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 7 CFR Parts 210 and 220

which was published at 65 FR 36315 on

JUne 8, 2000, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Daled: July 18, 20D1.

George A. Hraley,

Acting Administrator. Food and Nutrition

Sel'llice.

[m Doc. 01-18369 Filed 7~Z3-01; 8:45 ami

BllUNG CODE3410-3_

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Doc;ket No. 20011-NM-309-AD; Amendment

39-12330; AD 20111-14--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 of the bonding

jumper assemblies on the drain tube

assemblies of the sIal track housing of

the wings. For certain olher airplanes,

this AD requires repetitive inspections

of the drain tube assemblies of the slat

track bousing of the wings to find

discrepancies, and corrective actions, if

necessary. This AD also provides for

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. These aclions are necessary

10 find and fix discrepancies of the

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 of the 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

of the Federal Register as of August 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, BOONorth Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington. DC.

FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT:

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-

SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the 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 of the bondingjtnnper

assemblies. For certain other airplanes,

that action proposed to require

repetitive inspections of the drain tube

assemblies of the slat track housing of
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 142 I Tuesday, July 24, 2001/Rules and Regulations 38351

the wings to find discrepancies, and

corrective actions, if necessary. That

action also provides for terminating

action for the repetitive inspections,

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Extend Compliance Time

Several commenters ask that the

compliance time for doing the

terminating action specified in

paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be

extended, as follows.

The first comrnenter states that the

terminating action specified in

paragraph (b) of the proposed rule

requires compliance within 6,000 flight

hours or 18 months after the effective

date of the 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 a heavy

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 of the AD to

allow time for delivery of the kits. The

commenter adds that the repetitive

visual inspections for the fuel leak

specified in the service bulletin and a

compliance time of 48 months provide

an acceptable level of safety.

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 a change to the compliance time,

but states that the time given to do the

terminating action should be extended

to allow for proper airplane scheduling.

The third commenter states that the

compliance time for doing the

terminating action as specified in

paragraph (b) of the proposed rule

corresponds to a maintenance planning

document "C" check interval, find is

unreasonable. The commenler notes that

the cracking of the slat track housing

drain tubes is due to airframe vibration,

which is related 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 18 months after the

effective date of the AD will 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 of a "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

for rework outside of routine

maintenance checks. The cornmenter

proposes that the calendar time limit for

the terminating action specified in

paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be

extended to 24 months (the equivalent

of a scheduled "C" check), The

commenter wants the flight hour

threshold specified in paragraph [b) to

remain the same, which means the

actual operating period for the 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 is adequate 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 ruLe at

the next heavy maintenance check per

the normal defueling requirements of

the MPD. The MPD task to defuel is at

the 4C check, 72-month interval. The

co=enter adds that a 72·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) of the

proposed rule, kHs were 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 of parts. 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) of the

proposed rule, maintains an adequate

level of safety until the terminating

action can be done. The commenter

notes tbat there have not been any

reported leaks at the slat track drain

tube location since the proposed rule

was issued. The commenter asks that

the compliance time specified in

paragraph (h) of the proposed rule be

changed to within 6,000 flight hours or

36 months after the effective date of the

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) of the 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 for the terminating action required

by the final rule, we considered not only

the degree of urgency associated with

addressing the unsafe condition, but the

practical aspect of incorporating the

required drain tube modification on the

Model 767 fleet in a timely manner.

Other factors included in the

determination of an acceptable

compliance time are that we informed

lhe Air Transporl Association in March

1998 of our 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,

It is our intent in this final rule to

have the terminating action done within

the time frame of a '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 of the majority

of affected 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 of safety until the terminating

action required oy paragraph (b) is done.

Paragrapo [b) of the final rule has been

changed accordingly.

In response to the commenters'

concerns that parts will not be available

for installation 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 of 24 months after the

effective date of this 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 of the 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 of service

information for accomplishment of the

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 OIle rule. The reasons for

Ihis are as follows:

Boeing Service Bulletin 767-

57A0060, Revision 1, provides

procedures for repetitive visual

inspections of the drain tube assemblies

of the slat track housing of the wings to

find discrepancies. Such discrepancies

may lead to an airplane fire as a result

of fuel 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 of the slat track

housing ofthe wings. An earlier

production installation of the 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 of the 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 of Boeing Service

Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1,

located on page 21.

The FAA concurs with these

comments and acknowledges that the

description of the area (numbers 5 and

B inboard) of the drain assembly of the

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 of the Summary section of

the final rule is to provide a brief

explanation of the 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 of the proposed rule

be changed. Tbe commenter points out

that there is a typographical 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 of the MPD, instead of the correct

reference to Section 57-5o-Do-A. But

this final rule does not restate the

Differences section of the proposed rule

wherein the commenter has requested

changes. That difference merely stated

that the proposed rule would require

accomplishment of the initial and repeat

visual inspections regardless of earlier

accomplishment of the 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

of the service hulletin. The commenter

asks that the FAA confam that the MPD

can be used instead of doing the visual

inspection specified in paragraph (a) of

the proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur. As stated

in the Differences section of the

proposed ruLe, discussed previously, the

final rule requires accomplishment of

the initial and repeat visual inspections

regardless of earlier accomplishment of

the inspection specified in the MPD.

This is necessary because the inspection

in the MPD does not require a minimum

amount of fuel in each wing tank, hut

the visual inspections described in Part

I of the service bulletin specify a

minimum of 4,400 gallons of fuel 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 of work hours estimated for

doing the actions in the proposed rule,

as specified in the service bulletins, are

more accurate than the number of work

hours specified in the cost impact

section of the proposed ruLe. The

commenter notes that the estimate for

replacement of the 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 of the proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur. The cost

impact information (below) estimates

only the "direct" costs of the specific

actions required by this final rule. The

number of work 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 of the general

obligation of operators to maintain and

operate airplanes in an airworthy

condition, this cost estimate is

inaccurate. Attrihuting those costs to the

requirements of this rmal rule is

unrealistic because in the interest of

maintaining and operating safe

airplanes, operators would do the

required actions even if they 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 of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the 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

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 745

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide neet. The FAA estimates that

275 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

For airplanes listed in Boeing Service

Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1 (228

U.S.-registered airplanes): [t will 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 of the required inspection on

U.S. operators is estimaled to be

$13,680, or $60 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 12 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required replacement of the 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 of the 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): It will take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

rework of the 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

of the 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 of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this 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 of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government 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 of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it 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 of the Amendment

Accordingly. pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator. the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 eFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39-AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 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.

Docket 2000-NM-309-AD.

Applicability ..Model 757 series airplanes,

line numbers 1 through 757 inclusive,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: Tbis AD applies to each llirplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provisiou, regardless of whether it bas been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirem"nts of this AD. l"or

airplanes that bave been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

ownerfoperator must request approval for ilJl

alternative method uf compliance in

accordance with pamgmph (d] of this AD.

The request should include an assessmeot of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

nJpair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD: and, if the unsafe condition has not

heen ",liminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance; Required as indicated. unless

accomplished previously.

'1'0fUld and fix discrepancies [bonding,

loose fittings. cracking) of the bonding

jumper assemblies. wbich could msult in an

in·tank iguition source due to electrostatic

discharge or lightning: and of the slat lrlIck

drain tubes. which could result in fuel

migrating into the tubes and leaking onlO an

engine or exhaust nozde, and consequent

risk of a fire when the airplane is stationary

or during low speed taxiing; accomplish the

following:

Repetitive InspeclionslCorrective Actinn

1'1)For airplanes listed in Boeing Servtce

Bulletin 757-57 A0060, Revisiou 1, dated

December 31, 199B:within 500 fligbt hnurs

after the effective date of this AD: Do B

general visual inspetlton of the drain tube

assemblies of the slat track:housings of the

wings to find discrepancies (loose fittings.

cracked tubes, fuel leaks), per Part I uf the

Accomplishmenllnstructions of the service

bulletin.

(1) Ifany discrepandes are found, hefor~

further flight. rework the drain tube assembly

per Pert II of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin; repeatlhe

inspection at intervals not to exceed 500

flight huurs until accomplishment ufthe

requirements in paragraph {blof this AD.

[2) If no discrepanci..s are found, ~peat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 500 flight hours. until

accomplishment of the requirements in

paragraph {hiof this AD.

Nole 2: For the purposes of this AD. a

genOJralvisual inspection is defined as: "A

vis<.lelexamination of an interior or exlerior

area, installation. or assembly to find obvious

damage. failure, or irregularity, This level of

inspection is made under normally available

lighting conditions sucb as daylight, hangar

lighting, flashlight, or drop-light and may

require removal or opening of access panels

or doors. Stands, ladders. or plalfonns may

be required to gain proximity to the area

being checked."

Tenntnating Action ror Rep"titive

Inspections

(h) For airplanes specified in paragraph {a]

of this AD. within 6.000 flight hours or 24

months after the effective date of this AD.

whichever occurs first: Replace the drain

tube assemblies of the slat track housings of

the wiugs (including general visual

inspection and repair] per Part 1I1of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing

Service Bulletin 767--57AOO60,Revision 1.

daled December 31,1998. Any applicable

repair must be accomplis bed prior 10 further

flight. Accomplishment of this paragraph

terminates the repelitive inspections required

by paragraph (a) of this AD.
38354 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. H2/Tuesday, July 24, ZOOt/Rules and Regulations

Rework of Bonding Jwnper Assemblies

(cl ~'or airplanes listed in Boeing Service

BuUetin 767-57-0068, dated September 16,

1999; within 5,000 flight cyde5 or 22 month5

after the effective date of thi5 AD, whichever

occur5 fir~l; Rework the bonding jumper

assembly of the drain tube a5semblies of the

slat track housing of the wings [including

general visual in5pection and repair) per the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin. Any applicable repair must be

accomplisbed prior to further flight.

Accomplishment of this paragraph

terminates the requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliana:

[d) An ultllrnative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliancc time that

provides an acceptable level of safaty may be

used if approved by th" Manager, Seattle

Aircuft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall send their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

5end it to the Mauager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information coocerning the

existence of approved aitemulive methods of

compliance with this AD. if any. may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Spedal Flight Pennit

[e) Special flight permits milYbe issued per

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

11.1(9) to operate the airplane to a Location

where the requirement5 of this AD can be

accomplished.

In&llrponttion by Refenmce

[I)The actions sbaH be done in accordance

with Boeing Stlrvice Bulletin 767-57 A0060,

Revision 1. duted December 31, 1998. and

Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0068. dated

September 16. 1999; as applicable. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 V.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. COpillSmay be obtained FromBoeing

Commen:ial Airplane Group. P.O. Box 3707,

Seattle, Washington 98114-2207. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office or the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol StIeet, NW., suite

700, Washington. DC.

EfTccli~eDale

Ig]This amendment becomes effective on

August 28, 2001.

issued in Renton. Washington, OnJuly 12.

2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Tmnsport. Airplone Direcwmte,

Aircmft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01-18016 Filed 7-23-01; 8:45 ami

81LUNG COOE ~911)-.13-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR 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, if necessary. This AD also

provides for optional terminating action

for lhe repetitive inspections. This AD

is prompted by reports of incidents

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

of the main deck floor beams at certain

body stations due to fatigue cracking,

which could result in rapid

decompression and consequent reduced

conirollability of the airplane.

DATES:Effective August 28, 200l.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications iisted in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of lhe Federal Register as of August 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.

FORFURTHERtNFORMATIONCONTACT:

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.

SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION; A

proposal to amend part 39 of the 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 of this 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 of the ADs. To be

consistent with previous ADs, the

comrnenter suggests that a IS-month

phase-in period be implemented before

the issuance of this proposed rule.

The FAA concurs. This £inal rule

relates to the recommendations of the

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 of this

AD, whichever occurs later.

The same commenter asks that the

initial inspection specified in paragraph

(a) of the proposed rule be done within

10.000 flight cycles after the effective

date of the AD, instead of within 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