64008 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance 

Inspection Program 

(g) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, incorporte a revision into the 

FAA-approved maintenance inspection 

program that provides no less than the 

required damage tolerance assessment/ 

analysis (DTA) for each structural significant 

item (SSI) listed in the SSID. (The required 

DTA value for each SSI is listed in the SSID.) 

The revision to the maintenance inspection 

program must include and must be 

implemented in accordance with the 

procedures in Section 5.0, ‘‘Damage 

Tolerance Analysis Methodology,’’ and 

Section 7.0, ‘‘Discrepancy Reporting,’’ of the 

SSID. Under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq.), the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in this AD 

and has assigned OMB Control Number 

2120–0056. 

Initial and Repetitive Inspections 

(h) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, 

except as provided by paragraphs (i) through 

(m) of this AD: Do the applicable initial 

inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, in 

accordance with the SSID. Repeat the 

applicable inspections thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed the ‘‘Recurring’’ intervals 

specified in Section 6.0.0 of the SSID, except 

as provided by paragraphs (k) through (m) of 

this AD. 

(1) Before the applicable ‘‘Initial’’

threshold specified in Section 6.0.0, 

‘‘Structural Inspection Requirements’’ of the 

SSID. 

(2) Within 36 months after the effective 

date of this AD, or within one ‘‘Recurring’’

interval measured from 12 months after the 

effective date of the AD, whichever comes 

first. 

Exceptions to the SSID 

(i) Where Section 6.0.0 of the SSID 

specifies the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold in years 

(since new), this AD requires compliance 

within the specified year since the date of 

issuance of the original standard 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of 

airworthiness. 

(j) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold as ‘‘Special 

Condition,’’ this AD requires compliance 

within 24 months after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(k) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold and ‘‘Recurring’’

interval as ‘‘FS 1041 Fitting Replacement,’’

this AD requires compliance within 24 

months after the effective date of this AD and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 

months. 

(l) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold and ‘‘Recurring’’

interval as ‘‘Engine Change,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within 24 months after 

the effective date of this AD and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 36 months. 

(m) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold and ‘‘Recurring’’

interval as ‘‘Aft Lord Mount Change,’’ this 

AD requires compliance within 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 

months. 

Repair 

(n) If any cracked structure is found during 

any inspection required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD, before further flight, repair the 

cracked structure using a method approved 

by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to 

be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, 

as required by this paragraph, the Manager’s 

approval letter must specifically refer to this 

AD. 

Inspection Program for Transferred 

Airplanes 

(o) Before any airplane that is subject to 

this AD and that has exceeded the applicable 

compliance times specified in paragraph (h) 

of this AD can be added to an air carrier’s 

operations specifications, a program for the 

accomplishment of the inspections required 

by this AD must be established in accordance 

with paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(1) For airplanes that have been inspected 

in accordance with this AD: The inspection 

of each SSI must be done by the new operator 

in accordance with the previous operator’s 

schedule and inspection method, or the new 

operator’s schedule and inspection method, 

at whichever time would result in the earlier 

accomplishment for that SSI inspection. The 

compliance time for accomplishment of this 

inspection must be measured from the last 

inspection accomplished by the previous 

operator. After each inspection has been 

done once, each subsequent inspection must 

be performed in accordance with the new 

operator’s schedule and inspection method. 

(2) For airplanes that have not been 

inspected in accordance with this AD: The 

inspection of each SSI required by this AD 

must be done either before adding the 

airplane to the air carrier’s operations 

specification, or in accordance with a 

schedule and an inspection method approved 

by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA. After each inspection has 

been done once, each subsequent inspection 

must be done in accordance with the new 

operator’s schedule. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(p)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

required in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

23, 2007. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–5595 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–29335; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–045–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–

9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–

9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

comment period for the abovereferenced NPRM, which proposes the 

adoption of a new airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to all 

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81 

(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 

(MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–

88 airplanes. The NPRM would require 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

overwing frames from stations 845 to 

905 (MD–87 stations 731 to 791), left 

and right sides, and corrective actions if 

necessary. The NPRM results from 

reports of cracked overwing frames. 

This extension of the comment period is 

necessary to ensure that all interested 

persons have ample opportunity to 

submit any written relevant data, views, 

or arguments regarding the NPRM. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this NPRM by December 3, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 64009 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5233; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) for an AD (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) for all McDonnell Douglas 

Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 

(MD–87), and MD–88 airplanes. The 

original NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on September 28, 2007 

(72 FR 55111). The original NPRM 

proposed to require repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the overwing 

frames from stations 845 to 905 (MD–87 

stations 731 to 791), left and right sides, 

and corrective actions if necessary. The 

original NPRM also invites comments 

on its overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects. 

Events Leading to Extension of 

Comment Period 

Since we issued the NPRM, the DOT’s 

Docket Management System (DMS) was 

replaced by the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS). FDMS is 

a government-wide, electronic docket 

management system, which contains the 

public dockets and is the method used 

for submitting comments on the overall 

regulatory, economic, environmental, 

and energy aspects of proposed 

rulemaking actions. However, due to the 

service disruption caused by the 

transition from DOT’s DMS to the 

FDMS, the docket material was not 

posted on the FDMS until November 1, 

2007. Therefore, we have determined 

that the public was not provided 

adequate opportunity to submit 

comments on the NPRM. As a result, we 

have decided to extend the comment 

period for this NPRM until December 3, 

2007, to receive additional comments. 

FAA’s Determination 

We have considered this issue and 

find it appropriate to extend the 

comment period to give all interested 

persons additional time to examine the 

proposed requirements of the original 

NPRM and submit comments. After 

evaluating the circumstances stated 

previously, we have determined that 

extending the comment period until 

December 3, 2007, will not compromise 

the safety of these airplanes. 

Extension of Comment Period 

The comment period for Docket No. 

FAA–2007–29335; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–045–AD; has been revised. 

The comment period now closes 

December 3, 2007. 

No other part of the regulatory 

information has been changed; 

therefore, the original NPRM is not 

republished in the Federal Register. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 7, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–5654 Filed 11–9–07; 10:10 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–29333; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–141–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

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

–900 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

comment period for the abovereferenced NPRM, which proposes the 

adoption of a new airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to certain 

Boeing Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, and –900 series airplanes. The 

NRPM would require various repetitive 

inspections to detect cracks along the 

chemically milled steps of the fuselage 

skin or missing or loose fasteners in the 

area of the preventative modification or 

repairs, replacement of the time-limited 

repair with the permanent repair if 

applicable, and applicable corrective 

actions if necessary, which would end 

certain repetitive inspections. The 

NPRM results from a fatigue test that 

revealed numerous cracks in the upper 

skin panel at the chemically milled step 

above the lap joint. This extension of 

the comment period is necessary to 

ensure that all interested persons have 

ample opportunity to submit any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments regarding the NPRM. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this NPRM by December 3, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) for an AD (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) for certain Boeing Model 737–

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

airplanes. The original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55118). The 

original NPRM proposed to require 

various repetitive inspections to detect 

cracks along the chemically milled steps 

of the fuselage skin or missing or loose 

fasteners in the area of the preventative 

modification or repairs, replacement of 

the time-limited repair with the 

permanent repair if applicable, and 

applicable corrective actions if 

necessary, which would end certain 

repetitive inspections. The original 

NPRM also invites comments on its 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects. 

Events Leading to Extension of 

Comment Period 

Since we issued the NPRM, the DOT’s 

Docket Management System (DMS) was 

replaced by the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS). FDMS is 

a government-wide, electronic docket 

management system, which contains the 

public dockets and is the method used 

for submitting comments on the overall 

regulatory, economic, environmental, 

and energy aspects of proposed 

rulemaking actions. However, due to the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS