51382 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25001; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–079–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900 and –900ER Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain Boeing Model 737–600, –700, 

–700C, –800 and –900 series airplanes. 

The original NPRM would have 

required replacing the aero/fire seals of 

the blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes on the engines with new, 

improved aero/fire seals. The original 

NPRM resulted from a report that the 

top three inches of the aero/fire seals of 

the blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes are not fireproof. This 

action revises the original NPRM by 

adding airplanes to the applicability 

statement and requiring a one-time 

inspection to determine the part 

numbers of the aero/fire seals. We are 

proposing this supplemental NPRM to 

prevent a fire in the fan compartment (a 

fire zone) from migrating through the 

seal to a flammable fluid in the thrust 

reverser actuator compartment (a 

flammable fluid leakage zone), which 

could result in an uncontrolled fire. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by September 

29, 2008. 

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 proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samuel Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6510; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2006–25001; Directorate Identifier 

2006–NM–079–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that would apply to certain Boeing 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800 and 

–900 series airplanes. The original 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on June 13, 2006 (71 FR 34025). 

The original NPRM proposed to require 

replacing the aero/fire seals of the 

blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes on the engines with new, 

improved aero/fire seals. 

Actions Since Original NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the original NPRM, 

we have received information on the 

rotability of the affected aero/fire seals. 

Also, Model 737–900ER series airplanes 

have been added to the U.S. type 

certificate data sheet and could be 

affected by the rotability of the seals. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments on the original NPRM. 

Support for the Original NPRM 

Boeing concurs with the contents of 

the original NPRM. 

Request To Revise the Applicability 

Statement To Address Rotable Parts 

AirTran Airways requests that we 

revise the applicability statement of the 

original NPRM to apply to the part 

number/serial number of the affected 

thrust reverser assembly instead of the 

serial number of airplanes. AirTran is 

concerned that the proposed 

applicability does not address the 

possibility that an affected thrust 

reverser assembly might be installed on 

an airplane not addressed in that 

applicability statement. AirTran states 

that the thrust reverser assembly is a 

rotable component, which can be 

removed from an airplane affected by 

this proposed AD and installed on an 

airplane not affected by this proposed 

AD. AirTran also notes that the thrust 

reverser assemblies have serialized 

numbers and are tracked by most 

airlines. 

We agree that it is possible to rotate 

the affected component onto another 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900, or –900ER series airplane that is 

not affected by the applicability 

proposed in the original NPRM. We 

have revised the applicability statement 

in this supplemental NPRM to apply to 

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

–900 and –900ER series airplanes. We 

have also added a new paragraph (f) to 

this supplemental NPRM to require a 

record check or inspection to determine 

the part number of the installed 

assembly. If an affected part number is 

installed, or the part number cannot be 

confirmed, then operators would be 

required to replace the assemblies. We 

have coordinated this issue with Boeing. 

Request To Address Spare Parts 

AirTran notes that the original NPRM 

does not address thrust reverser 

assemblies that were purchased as spare 

parts. AirTran states that the original 

NPRM does not require any 

modifications to any thrust reverser 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 51383 

assembly not currently installed on an 

airplane. 

We infer that AirTran is concerned 

about the possibility that an affected 

and unmodified spare thrust reverser 

assembly may be installed on an 

airplane.We do not agree that revising 

the supplemental NPRM to address 

spare parts is necessary. We have 

confirmation from Boeing that all 

affected spare assemblies have been 

purged from the parts supply system. In 

addition, no affected/unsafe part is 

allowed to be installed on an airplane 

after the compliance time of an AD has 

passed. We have revised this 

supplemental NPRM to address the 

rotability concern expressed in the 

previous comment. For these reasons, 

we consider revising the AD to address 

spare parts unnecessary. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Incorporate by Reference 

During NPRM Process 

The Modification and Replacement 

Parts Association (MARPA) requests 

that the applicable service information 

be incorporated by reference in the 

NPRM phase of rulemaking and posted 

on the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) for public access. 

MARPA states that since the service 

information has additional information 

that is not public, the proposed rule is 

not enforceable. 

We do not agree that documents 

should be incorporated by reference 

during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. 

The Office of the Federal Register 

requires that documents that are 

necessary to accomplish the 

requirements of the AD be incorporated 

by reference during the final rule phase 

of rulemaking. This supplementary 

NPRM is not a final rule and does not 

incorporate the relevant service 

information by reference. Further, we 

point out that while documents that are 

incorporated by reference do become 

public information, they do not lose 

their copyright protection. For that 

reason, we advise the public to contact 

the manufacturer to obtain copies of the 

referenced service information. 

In regard to the commenter’s request 

to post service bulletins on the 

Department of Transportation’s FDMS, 

we are currently in the process of 

reviewing issues surrounding the 

posting of service information on-line as 

part of an AD docket. Once we have 

thoroughly examined all aspects of this 

issue and have made a final 

determination, we will consider 

whether our current practice needs to be 

revised. No change to the supplemental 

NPRM is necessary in this regard. 

Request To Address Defective Parts 

Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts 

The same commenter also requests 

that the Transport Airplane Directorate 

(TAD) develop a policy to address 

possible defective or replacement PMA 

alternative parts, regardless of the 

manufacturing source (original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM), PMA, 

or repair station), so that all defective 

PMA parts are also subject to the 

proposed AD and are removed from the 

parts stream. 

The FAA recognizes the need for 

standardization of this issue and is 

currently in the process of reviewing 

issues that address the use of PMAs in 

ADs at the national level. However, the 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

considers that to delay this particular 

AD action would be inappropriate, since 

we have determined that an unsafe 

condition exists and that replacement of 

certain parts must be accomplished to 

ensure continued safety. Therefore, no 

change has been made to the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all 

pertinent information and determined 

an unsafe condition exists and is likely 

to exist or develop on other products of 

the same type design. Certain changes 

described above expand the scope of the 

original NPRM. As a result, we have 

determined that it is necessary to reopen 

the comment period to provide 

additional opportunity for the public to 

comment on this supplemental NPRM. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 2,442 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection to determine part number 

(new proposed action) .......................... 1 $80 $0 $80 803 $64,240 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. 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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this supplemental NPRM and placed it 

in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
51384 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2006–25001; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–079–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by September 29, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900 and 

–900ER series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report that the 

top three inches of the aero/fire seals of the 

blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque 

boxes are not fireproof. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent a fire in the fan compartment 

(a fire zone) from migrating through the seal 

to a flammable fluid in the thrust reverser 

actuator compartment (a flammable fluid 

leakage zone), which could result in an 

uncontrolled fire. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspection To Determine Part Number (P/N) 

(f) Within 60 months or 8,200 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Perform a one-time detailed 

inspection to determine the color of the aero/ 

fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust 

reverser torque boxes on the engines. For any 

aero/fire seal having a completely gray color 

(which is the color of seals with P/N 

315A2245–1 or 315A2245–2), with no red at 

the upper end of the seal, do the actions 

specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. For any 

aero/fire seal having a red color at the upper 

end of the seal (which indicates a different 

part number), no further action is required by 

this AD. A review of airplane maintenance 

records is acceptable in lieu of this 

inspection if the part number of the correct 

aero/fire seals (P/Ns 315A2245–7 or –8) can 

be conclusively determined to be installed 

from that review. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’ 

Replace the Aero/Fire Seals 

(g) For any aero/fire seal identified during 

the inspection/records check in paragraph (f) 

of this AD as having an affected P/N: Within 

60 months or 8,200 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

first, replace the aero/fire seals of the blocker 

doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on 

the engines with new, improved aero/fire 

seals in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005. 

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous 

Service Information 

(h) Replacements done before the effective 

date of this AD in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, dated April 7, 2005, are acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Samuel 

Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 

Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6510; fax (425) 917–6590; has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using 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 August 

25, 2008. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–20341 Filed 9–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1500 

Exemption From Classification as 

Banned Hazardous Substance; 

Proposed Exemption for Boston Billow 

Nursing Pillow and Substantially 

Similar Nursing Pillows 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing 

to exempt the Boston Billow Nursing 

Pillow and substantially similar nursing 

pillows from the Commission’s 

regulations banning infant cushions/ 

pillows set forth in the Commission’s 

regulations at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(16)(i). 

DATES: Written comments in response to 

this notice must be received by October 

3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

submitted to the Office of the Secretary 

by e-mail at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, or mailed 

or delivered, preferably in five copies, to 

the Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 

20814. Comments may also be filed by 

facsimile to (301) 504–0127. Comments 

should be captioned ‘‘Infant Cushions/ 

Pillows NPR.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suad Wanna-Nakamura, Directorate for 

Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7252; e-mail 

snakamura@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Between 1985 and 1992, there were 

35 infant deaths associated with the use 

of infant cushions/pillows (also known, 

among other names, as ‘‘baby beanbag 

pillows’’ and ‘‘beanbag cushions’’). In 

almost all of the cases where the infant’s 

position could be determined, the infant 

was in a prone, face down, position. 55 

FR 42202. The Commission initiated a 

rulemaking proceeding to determine 

whether a ban was necessary to address 

an unreasonable risk of injury and death 

associated with these types of infant 

cushions/pillows. Due to the number of 

infant deaths associated with these 

products, the Commission proposed a 

rule to ban infant cushions/pillows with 

certain characteristics. 56 FR 32352. On 

June 23, 1992, the Commission issued a 

rule codified at 16 CFR 

1500.18(a)(16)(i), banning infant 

cushions/pillows that: (1) Have a 

flexible fabric covering; (2) are loosely 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS