9756 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1112; fax 425–227–1149. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- 

AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 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. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

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 Defense and Space S.A.’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 2016–0012, dated 

January 14, 2016, for related information. 

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–3704. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Airbus Defence and Space Alert 

Operators Transmission AOT–C295–27– 

0001, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2015. 

(ii) Airbus Defence and Space Alert 

Operators Transmission AOT–CN235–27– 

0002, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2015. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space 

S.A., Services/Engineering Support, Avenida 

de Arago ́n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; 

telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 

3127; email MTA.TechnicalService@

military.airbus.com. For U.S. operators, email 

alternatively TechnicalSupport@

airbusmilitaryna.com. 

(4) You may view this 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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

15, 2016. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03883 Filed 2–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–0681; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–201–AD; Amendment 

39–18400; AD 2016–04–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, 

–700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series 

airplanes. This AD was prompted by a 

determination that a repetitive test is 

needed to inspect the components on 

airplanes equipped with a certain air 

distribution system configuration. This 

AD requires doing repetitive testing for 

correct operation of the equipment 

cooling system and low pressure 

environmental control system, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This AD 

also requires, for certain airplanes, 

installing new relays and doing wiring 

changes to the environmental control 

system. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct latent failures of the 

equipment cooling system and low 

pressure environmental control system, 

which, in combination with a cargo fire 

event, could result in smoke in the flight 

deck and/or main cabin, and possible 

loss of aircraft control. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 1, 

2016. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of April 1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; 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– 

0681. 

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– 

0681; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental 

Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6585; 

fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

stanley.chen@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and 

–900ER series airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 1, 2015 (80 FR 17368) (‘‘the 

NPRM’’). The NPRM was prompted by 

a determination that a repetitive test is 

needed to inspect the components on 

airplanes equipped with a certain air 

distribution system configuration. The 

NPRM proposed to require repetitive 

testing for correct operation of the 

equipment cooling system and low 

pressure environmental control system, 

and corrective actions if necessary. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 9757 

NPRM also proposed to require, for 

certain airplanes, installing new relays 

and doing wiring changes to the 

environmental control system. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct 

latent failures of the equipment cooling 

system and low pressure environmental 

control system, which, in combination 

with a cargo fire event, could result in 

smoke in the flight deck and/or main 

cabin, and possible loss of aircraft 

control. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Clarify Conditions Leading 

to Unsafe Condition 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

unsafe condition to clarify that latent 

failures of the equipment cooling system 

and low pressure environmental control 

system alone do not create the unsafe 

condition addressed in the NPRM. 

Boeing explained that the unsafe 

condition is a combination of a failure 

of both systems along with a cargo fire 

event, which could lead to a smoke 

penetration hazard. 

We agree to revise the description of 

the events leading to the unsafe 

condition, and have revised the 

SUMMARY section in this final rule and 

paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly. 

Request To Clarify Unsafe Condition 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

NPRM to clarify that the hazard being 

mitigated by the NPRM is smoke 

penetration into the occupied areas of 

the airplane—the flight deck or the main 

cabin (not just the flight deck). Boeing 

stated that failure of the equipment 

cooling system and/or low pressure 

environmental control system, in 

combination with a cargo fire event, 

could lead to cargo smoke penetration 

into the flight deck and/or main cabin, 

either of which could be catastrophic. 

We agree that clarification is needed 

to specify that the hazard being 

mitigated by the NPRM is smoke 

penetration into flight deck and main 

cabin, which are occupied areas of the 

airplane. We have revised the SUMMARY

section in this final rule and paragraph 

(e) of this AD accordingly. 

Request To Match Repetitive Interval in 

Service Information 

Boeing, Delta Airlines (Delta), United 

Airlines (United), and Yuta Kobayashi 

requested that we revise the repetitive 

interval for the operational test from 

9,000 flight cycles to 9,000 flight hours. 

Boeing stated that a 9,000 flight-hour 

interval is supported by a fault tree 

analysis, whereas the repetitive interval 

of 9,000 flight cycles required by the 

NPRM is not. Mr. Kobayashi stated that 

a correction needed to be made since 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, states the 

repetitive interval in flight hours. 

We agree with the request to revise 

the repetitive interval since the 

repetitive interval in flight hours 

matches the interval stated in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, 

dated May 22, 2014. In the proposed 

AD, we inadvertently specified flight 

‘‘cycles’’ instead of flight ‘‘hours.’’ We 

have revised the interval in paragraph 

(g) of this AD from flight ‘‘cycles’’ to 

flight ‘‘hours.’’ 

Request To Clarify Airplanes Subject to 

Repetitive Testing Requirement 

The Discussion section of the NPRM 

stated that a repetitive test is needed on 

airplanes equipped with an air 

distribution system that had been 

reconfigured in accordance with Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737– 

26–1122. Boeing requested that we 

revise the NPRM to clarify that all 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900 and –900ER airplanes are subject 

to the repetitive testing (as specified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

26A1137, dated May 22, 2014)—not just 

those airplanes with reconfigured air 

distribution systems. Boeing added that 

Model 737–700C and 737–900 airplanes 

were not subject to the same changes 

and thus were not included in the 

effectivity of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–26–1122, Revision 

1, dated August 13, 2009. 

We agree that Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–26A1137, dated May 22, 

2014, describes procedures for the 

operational testing of the equipment 

cooling system and low pressure 

environmental control systems, and that 

all 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900 

and –900ER airplanes are subject to this 

repetitive testing. However, the 

Discussion section that appeared in the 

NPRM is not repeated in this final rule. 

Therefore no change has been made to 

this final rule in this regard. 

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes 

From Applicability 

Delta requested that we revise the 

NPRM to exclude airplanes that have 

not been modified by Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–26– 

1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009. Delta further requested that these 

airplanes be subject to evaluation for 

additional separate rulemaking. 

Delta stated that it believes two 

separate airworthiness concerns must be 

addressed. Delta stated that the first 

concern identified by the NPRM is a 

potential latent failure of the equipment 

cooling system and low pressure 

environmental control system; Delta 

noted this condition is addressed by 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. 

Delta stated that the second concern, 

not identified by the NPRM, is the need 

to properly isolate the occupied areas of 

the airplane from smoke intrusion in the 

event of a cargo compartment fire; Delta 

noted this condition is addressed by the 

following service information: 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–26–1121, Revision 1, dated 

October 26, 2009. 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–26–1122, Revision 1, dated 

August 13, 2009. 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–21–1135, Revision 1, dated 

November 13, 2008. 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–21–1163, Revision 1, dated 

December 17, 2009. 

Delta stated this service information 

introduces, among other tasks, better 

sealing of the cargo compartment and 

changes to the environmental control 

system to keep the cargo compartment 

at a lower pressure than that of the 

cabin in order to keep smoke from a 

cargo compartment fire out of occupied 

areas. 

We disagree with the request to 

exclude the airplanes identified by the 

commenter and consider separate 

rulemaking for those airplanes. The 

primary airworthiness concern 

addressed by the requirements in this 

AD is the lack of a procedure to detect 

and correct latent failures of the 

equipment cooling system and low 

pressure environmental control system, 

which, in combination with a cargo fire 

event, could result in smoke in the flight 

deck and/or main cabin, and possible 

loss of aircraft control. This unsafe 

condition affects all Model 737–600, 

–700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER 

airplanes, regardless of whether Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737– 

26–1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, has been done. Therefore, all 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900, and –900ER airplanes are subject 

to the repetitive testing in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, dated 

May 22, 2014, not just those airplanes 

reconfigured using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–26– 

1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009. 

For certain airplanes, Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–26– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

9758 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, is a concurrent requirement 

because the actions specified Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737– 

26–1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, must be done to make sure the 

testing results are satisfactory (e.g., 

electrical components that are required 

to reconfigure the air distribution 

system during a cargo fire event need to 

be installed). 

In addition, the installation and 

changes specified in paragraph B. 

‘‘Concurrent Requirements’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737– 

26–1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, will need to be implemented, if 

not already done, in order accomplish 

the concurrent requirements as 

specified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–26–1122, Revision 

1, dated August 13, 2009. These 

measures are necessary to properly 

isolate the occupied areas of the aircraft 

from smoke penetration in the event of 

a cargo compartment fire, such as 

changes to the cargo compartment 

sealing and equipment cooling system 

to keep the cargo compartment at a 

lower pressure than the cabin pressure. 

Therefore, we have not changed this 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Incorporate Additional 

Service Information and Revise the 

Costs of Compliance Section 

Delta and Southwest Airlines 

(Southwest) requested that the Costs of 

Compliance section of the NPRM be 

revised to capture the costs of the 

following service information since they 

are identified as ‘‘Concurrent 

Requirements’’ in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–26– 

1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009: 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–26–1121, Revision 1, dated 

October 26, 2009. 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–21–1135, Revision 1, dated 

November 13, 2008. 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–21–1163, Revision 1, dated 

December 17, 2009. 

Delta stated these concurrent service 

bulletins add a significant burden to 

operators in terms of labor and time 

since they amount to 190 additional 

work-hours. Delta added that since 

these concurrent actions add significant 

change in scope, it is necessary to 

withdraw the existing proposed rule, 

allow operators the opportunity to 

comment on their incorporation, and 

reissue a revised rule with a new 

comment period. Additionally, Delta 

asked that these documents be specified 

by their explicit revision level in order 

to ensure the correct intended 

compliance actions are satisfied. 

We agree to add the labor and parts 

costs for concurrent accomplishment of 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–26–1122, Revision 1, dated 

August 13, 2009, because it is a 

requirement of this final rule for Group 

1 airplanes; the costs for this action 

were inadvertently omitted from the 

NPRM. 

We also acknowledge the installation 

and changes specified in paragraph B. 

‘‘Concurrent Requirements’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737– 

26–1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, may also need to be done for 

certain airplanes. We have therefore 

revised the Costs of Compliance section 

of this final rule by adding 208 workhours and a parts cost of $27,323 for the 

concurrent action. 

We do not agree to withdraw the 

existing NPRM and reissue a revised 

NPRM with a new comment period. To 

delay this final rule would be 

inappropriate, since we have 

determined that an unsafe condition 

exists. However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (j) of this AD, we may 

approve requests for adjustments to the 

compliance time if data are submitted to 

substantiate that such an adjustment 

would provide an acceptable level of 

safety. We have not changed this final 

rule in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Conflicting 

Concurrent Requirements 

Jet2.com requested that compliance 

guidance be given for airplanes 

equipped with Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST02076LA (http://

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgstc.nsf/0/

73f6dd3b3bfe1890862578af0053cf0a/

$FILE/ST02076LA.pdf); specifically, 

Jet2.com asked for clarification for 

airplanes that accomplished STC 

ST02076LA as an alternative action to 

installing the automatic shutoff system 

for the center tank fuel boost pumps 

using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–28A1206, Revision 2, dated May 

21, 2009, which is required by AD 

2011–18–03, Amendment 39–16785 (76 

FR 53317, August 26, 2011). Jet2.com 

explained that while the concurrent 

service information is clear for 

accomplishing the required actions of 

the proposed AD, actions for airplanes 

having STC ST02076LA are not clear. 

We agree to clarify the concurrent 

requirements of this AD. Paragraph B., 

‘‘Concurrent Requirements,’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737– 

26–1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, refers to Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–21–1135, dated 

December 12, 2007, for certain changes. 

However, Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–21–1135, dated 

December 12, 2007, inadvertently 

specified concurrent accomplishment of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

28A1206, dated January 11, 2006. 

Boeing subsequently issued Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–21– 

1135, Revision 1, dated November 13, 

2008, which no longer identifies Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–28A1206, 

dated January 11, 2006, as concurrent 

service information. We have revised 

paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify the 

concurrent requirements and state that 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

28A1206, dated January 11, 2006, is not 

required by this AD. 

Request To Clarify Initial Compliance 

Time for Production Airplanes 

American requested that we clarify 

the initial compliance times for 

airplanes that have not yet been 

delivered, since the proposed AD 

specifies a compliance time for the 

initial testing of only in-service 

airplanes, but not airplanes that are in 

production. American also requested a 

more definitive method of determining 

aircraft effectivity than relying on ‘‘the 

‘Get Effectivity’ function on 

myboeingfleet.com’’ as specified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. Group 3 airplanes in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, 

dated May 22, 2014, are identified as 

those having line numbers 1701 and all 

line numbers after 1701. It is not 

necessary to use the ‘Get Effectivity’ 

function on ‘‘myboeingfleet.com’’ 

because airplanes in production are 

Group 3 airplanes. The compliance time 

for Group 3 airplanes as specified in the 

NPRM is within 10 months. However, 

we have determined that for airplanes 

having line numbers 4923, 4924, and 

4926 and subsequent, which were 

delivered after the issuance of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, 

dated May 22, 2014, a compliance time 

of ‘‘before the accumulation of 9,000 

total flight hours’’ will provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have 

coordinated this change with Boeing. As 

a result, we have restructured paragraph 

(g) to include new subparagraphs (g)(1) 

and (g)(2). 

Request To Revise Initial Compliance 

Time Relative to AD Effective Date 

United requested that we clarify the 

initial compliance times for the test for 

correct operation of the equipment 

cooling system and low pressure 

environmental control system of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 9759 

proposed AD. United requested that the 

compliance time be revised from the 

effective date of the service bulletin to 

the effective date of the AD since Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, 

dated May 22, 2014, was not required at 

the time it was published and therefore, 

some operators may already be beyond 

the compliance time when this AD is 

issued. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. This AD requires compliance 

within the specified compliance time 

after the effective date of this AD. This 

provision was specified in paragraph (i) 

of the proposed AD, and is retained in 

this AD. We have not changed this AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Refer to a Maintenance 

Planning Document (MPD) as a Method 

of Compliance 

Aeroflot requested that we refer to 

Boeing Maintenance Planning 

Document B737 MPD 21–050–00. 

Aeroflot stated that the MPD and Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, 

dated May 22, 2014, refer to the same 

task specified in Boeing Airplane 

Maintenance Manual 21–27–00–700. 

We disagree with the request. 

Although this final rule does not refer 

to Boeing B737 MPD 21–050–00 as a 

method of compliance, operators may 

apply for an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) for these actions in 

accordance with the provisions of 

paragraph (j)(1) of this AD if sufficient 

data are submitted to substantiate that 

the MPD provides an acceptable level of 

safety. We have not changed this AD in 

this regard. 

Clarification Regarding the Installation 

of Winglets 

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that 

the installation of winglets per 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/

rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A78625

78880060456C?OpenDocument&

Highlight=st00830se) does not affect 

compliance. 

We agree with the commenter that 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/

rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A786257

8880060456C?OpenDocument&

Highlight=st00830se) does not affect the 

accomplishment of the manufacturer’s 

service instructions. Therefore, the 

installation of STC ST00830SE does not 

affect the ability to accomplish the 

actions required by this AD. We have 

not changed this AD in this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–26A1137, dated May 22, 

2014, which describes procedures for 

repetitive testing for correct operation of 

the smoke clearance mode of the 

equipment cooling system and low 

pressure environmental control system, 

and applicable corrective actions. 

We also reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–26– 

1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, which describes procedures for 

installing new relays and doing wiring 

changes to the environmental control 

system. 

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. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 1,372 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Operational Test ................................... 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 

per operation test cycle.

$0 .......................... $340 per operation 

test cycle.

$466,480 per operation test cycle. 

Installation of new relays and wiring 

changes to the environmental control 

system (concurrent actions) (up to 

613 airplanes).

Up to 208 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $17,680.

Up to $27,323 ....... Up to $45,003 ....... Up to $27,586,839. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary system fault isolation and 

replacements that would be required 

based on the results of the operational 

test. 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 

Perform system fault isolation and replace faulty component.10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 ......................... $0 $850 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

9760 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2016–04–06 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–18400; Docket No. 

FAA–2015–0681; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–201–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective April 1, 2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 2120, Air Distribution System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a determination 

that repetitive inspection is needed to inspect 

the components on airplanes equipped with 

a certain air distribution system 

configuration. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct latent failures of the 

equipment cooling system and low pressure 

environmental control system, which, in 

combination with a cargo fire event, could 

result in smoke in the flight deck and/or 

main cabin, and possible loss of aircraft 

control. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Operational Tests and 

Corrective Action 

At the applicable times specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a test 

for correct operation of the smoke clearance 

mode of the equipment cooling system and 

low pressure environmental control system, 

and do all applicable corrective actions, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 9,000 flight hours. 

(1) For airplanes other than those 

identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: At 

the applicable times identified in paragraph 

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

Bulletin 737–26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, 

except as required by paragraph (i) of this 

AD. 

(2) For airplanes having line numbers 

4923, 4924, and 4926 and subsequent: Before 

the accumulation of 9,000 total flight hours. 

(h) Concurrent Requirements 

For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, dated 

May 22, 2014: Before or concurrently with 

accomplishing the initial operational test 

required of paragraph (g) of this AD, install 

new relays and do wiring changes to the 

environmental control system, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–26–1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009. When the actions required by this 

paragraph are done, the installation and 

changes specified in paragraph B. 

‘‘Concurrent Requirements’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–26– 

1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, 

must also be done. However, operators 

should note that Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–28A1206, dated January 11, 

2006, is not required by this AD. 

(i) Exception to the Service Information 

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

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–26A1137, 

dated May 22, 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. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-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) For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii) of this AD 

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. 

(k) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems 

Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6585; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

stanley.chen@faa.gov. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. 

(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–26–1122, Revision 1, dated 

August 13, 2009. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 9761 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at 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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

8, 2016. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03459 Filed 2–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 1, 11, 16, and 111 

[Docket No. FDA–2015–N–0797] 

RIN 0910–AG64 and 0910–AG66 

The Food and Drug Administration 

Food Safety Modernization Act: 

Prevention-Oriented Import System 

Regulations and Implementation; 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notification of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

announcing a public meeting entitled 

‘‘FDA Food Safety Modernization Act: 

Prevention-Oriented Import System 

Regulations and Implementation.’’ The 

public meeting will provide importers 

and other interested persons an 

opportunity to discuss import safety 

regulations and programs, including 

final rules for foreign supplier 

verification programs (FSVPs) for 

importers of food for humans and 

animals (the FSVP final rule) and 

accreditation of third-party certification 

bodies (the third-party certification final 

rule). Participants will also be briefed 

on the status of FDA’s Voluntary 

Qualified Importer Program (VQIP), 

which is still in development. 

Additionally, the public meeting will 

provide importers and other interested 

persons an opportunity to discuss FDA’s 

comprehensive planning effort for the 

next phase of the FDA Food Safety 

Modernization Act implementation 

relating to import safety programs, 

which includes establishing the 

operational framework for these 

programs and plans for guidance 

documents, training, education, and 

technical assistance. 

DATES: See section III, ‘‘How to 

Participate in the Public Meeting’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for dates and times of the 

public meeting, closing dates for 

advance registration, and requesting 

special accommodations due to 

disability. 

ADDRESSES: See section III, ‘‘How to 

Participate in the Public Meeting’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about registering for the 

meeting, or to register by phone: 

Courtney Treece, Planning Professionals 

Ltd., 1210 West McDermott St., Suite 

111, Allen, TX 75013, 704–258–4983, 

FAX: 469–854–6992, email: ctreece@

planningprofessionals.com. 

For general questions about the 

meeting or for special accommodations 

due to a disability: Juanita Yates, Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 

(HFS–009), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5100 Paint Branch 

Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240– 

402–1731, email: Juanita.yates@

fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The FDA Food Safety Modernization 

Act (FSMA) (Pub. L.111–353), signed 

into law by President Obama on January 

4, 2011, enables FDA to better protect 

public health by helping to ensure the 

safety and security of the food supply. 

FSMA amends the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to 

establish the foundation of a 

modernized, prevention-based food 

safety system. Among other things, 

FSMA directs FDA to issue regulations 

requiring preventive controls for human 

food and animal food, setting standards 

for produce safety, and requiring 

importers to perform certain activities to 

help ensure that the food they bring into 

the United States is produced in a 

manner consistent with U.S. safety 

standards. 

In the Federal Register of November 

27, 2015, we published the FSVP final 

rule (80 FR 74225) and the third-party 

certification final rule (80 FR 74569). 

The FSVP final rule requires 

importers of food to verify that their 

foreign suppliers use processes and 

procedures that provide the same level 

of public health protection as the 

preventive controls and produce safety 

regulations, where applicable, and also 

to verify that the food they import is not 

adulterated and is not misbranded with 

respect to food allergen labeling. 

The third-party certification final rule 

adopts regulations to provide for 

accreditation of third-party certification 

bodies to conduct food safety audits of 

foreign entities, including registered 

foreign food facilities, and to issue food 

and facility certifications under FSMA. 

Certification will be required to 

establish VQIP eligibility. To prevent 

potentially harmful food from reaching 

U.S. consumers, in specific 

circumstances FDA also may require a 

food offered for import to be 

accompanied by a certification. 

On June 5, 2015, we published a 

notice of availability of a draft guidance 

for industry on VQIP for importers of 

human or animal food (80 FR 32136). 

The draft guidance describes and 

answers questions about VQIP. To 

ensure that we consider comments on 

the draft guidance before we complete a 

final version of the guidance, we invited 

electronic or written comments on the 

draft guidance by August 19, 2015. 

The FSVP and third-party 

certification final rules and related fact 

sheets are available on FDA’s FSMA 

Web page located at http://www.fda.gov/ 

FSMA. 

The FSVP and third-party 

certification final rules are two of 

several final rules that will establish the 

foundation of, and central framework 

for, the modern food safety system 

envisioned by Congress in FSMA. 

II. Purpose and Format of the Public 

Meeting 

FDA is holding the public meeting on 

FSMA’s prevention-oriented import 

system to brief participants on the key 

components of the FSVP and third-party 

certification final rules; brief 

participants on the status of the VQIP; 

discuss the plans for guidance 

documents related to import safety, as 

well as training, education, and 

technical assistance; provide an update 

on the development of a risk-based 

industry oversight framework that are at 

the core of FSMA; and answer questions 

about these import programs. 

The public meeting is an opportunity 

for FDA to share its current thinking on 

implementation plans for programs 

related to import safety. We encourage 

interested persons to provide feedback 

during the meeting on any ideas that we 

present at the public meeting related to 

the operational aspects of FSMA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES