Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36417 

understanding of SMS principles before 

responding to the questions below. 

Copies of these documents have been 

placed in the docket for this notice. 

Request for Information 

The FAA seeks input from the public 

on the following questions. In your 

comments please refer to the number of 

the specific question(s) you are 

responding to. Please do not hesitate to 

provide additional information 

regarding SMS not addressed by these 

questions if you believe it would be 

helpful in understanding the 

implications of imposing an SMS 

regulatory requirement. We do not 

expect that every commenter will be 

able to answer every question. Please 

respond to those questions you feel able 

to answer, or that address your 

particular issue. 

1. Please tell us about your 

organization, including what products/ 

services are provided, what FAA 

certificates you hold, approximate 

number of employees, and your 

approximate annual gross revenue. 

2. Has your organization implemented 

an SMS or components of an SMS based 

on any of the guidance materials below? 

Please describe your implementation 

experience. 

a. FAA Order VS8000.367, AVSSMS 

Requirements, Appendix B. 

b. AC–120–92, Introduction to Safety 

Management Systems for Air Operators. 

c. FAA-sponsored regulatory or 

voluntary programs (e.g., Continuing 

Analysis and Surveillance Systems 

(CASS), Internal Evaluation Programs 

(IEP), Aviation Safety Action Programs 

(ASAP), etc.). 

d. Foreign civil aviation authorities’ 

SMS development material (e.g., 

Transport Canada, Civil Aviation 

Authority of Singapore (CAAS), 

Australia Civil Aviation Safety 

Authority (CASA), U.K. Civil Aviation 

Authority (CAA)—please specify). 

3. Please comment on the sufficiency 

of the following SMS guidance material, 

and what, if any, additional information 

you would need to implement an SMS. 

a. FAA Order 8000.367, AVSSMS 

Requirements, Appendix B. 

b. AC–120–92, Introduction to Safety 

Management Systems for Air Operators. 

c. Foreign civil aviation authorities’ 

SMS development material. 

d. Third party material (e.g., IATA 

Operational Safety Audit (IOSA), 

International Standard for Business 

Aircraft Operations (IS–BAO), Regional 

Air Cargo Carriers Association 

(RACCA), Air Cargo Safety Foundation 

(ACSF)). 

e. Other (please specify). 

4. Do you currently have a quality 

management system (QMS) that meets 

some accepted standard (e.g., ISO–9000, 

Six-Sigma, Baldridge)? How would you 

envision your existing system operating 

in an SMS framework? 

5. If you have voluntarily developed, 

or are in the process of developing an 

SMS, what impact has SMS had on your 

organization in terms of enhanced safety 

and compliance with existing CFRs? 

6. Which types of product/service 

providers should be required to have an 

SMS and which, if any, should not? 

Please explain the reasoning for your 

opinion. 

7. If you have implemented an SMS 

and conducted cost and benefits 

analyses, please describe your findings. 

8. What are your main concerns and 

recommendations in making the 

transition to an SMS regarding the 

following? 

a. Documentation requirements (e.g., 

developing or updating manuals, 

policies, procedures, standard operating 

procedures). 

b. Recordkeeping requirements (e.g., 

hazard identification data, risk 

assessment data, corrective actions). 

c. Collection, sharing, and 

management of safety information (e.g., 

protection of and access to personally 

identifiable information, proprietary 

information). 

9. What are the initial and recurrent 

costs of establishing and maintaining 

SMS processes (e.g., internal auditing 

and evaluation, data collection, 

employee training, computer software, 

personnel hiring and training)? 

10. What impact has SMS had on your 

organization in terms of the resources 

necessary to implement and maintain 

the system? 

11. What new knowledge, skills, and 

abilities would your organization need, 

if any, to operate successfully within an 

SMS? 

12. Please give us your thoughts about 

the current processes for procuring and 

using voluntarily submitted safety data 

through FAA programs such as Aviation 

Safety Action Program (ASAP) and how 

these programs would fit within an SMS 

framework. 

13. What areas of the current 

regulations do you believe already 

incorporate SMS principles (e.g., 

continuing analysis and surveillance 

system (CASS) under 14 CFR 121.373; 

quality or inspection system 

requirements under 14 CFR 21.143 and 

21.303)? How would you suggest the 

FAA avoid any duplicative 

requirements in any SMS rulemaking 

effort? 

14. What concerns and 

recommendations do you have about 

setting objective standards for the 

evaluation of SMS processes (e.g., 

evaluating SMS effectiveness, defining 

scope of hazards, establishing 

acceptable levels of risk)? 

15. What are practical ways a small 

business could apply the elements of an 

SMS? 

16. What are your concerns and 

recommendations regarding the FAA 

making the transition to requiring SMS 

of product/service providers (e.g., 

schedule for implementation, FAA 

acceptance and approval procedures, 

oversight)? 

17. Please provide any additional 

information you think is pertinent. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 

2009. 

John Hickey, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. E9–17553 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0655; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–192–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–200F, 747–200C, 747–400, 

747–400D, and 747–400F Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to all Boeing 

Model 747–200F, 747–200C, 747–400, 

747–400D, and 747–400F series 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires repetitive inspections for 

cracking of certain fuselage internal 

structure (i.e., Sections 42 and 46 

fuselage frames, upper deck floor beams, 

electronic bay access door cutout, nose 

wheel well, and main entry doors and 

door cutouts), and repair if necessary. 

This proposed AD would require 

additional repetitive inspections for 

cracking of certain fuselage structure 

(i.e., Section 41 fuselage frames where 

they connect to upper deck floor beams, 

and section 41 fuselage frames between 

stringer (S–8 and S–12), and related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36418 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

also reduce the inspection threshold 

and repetitive inspection intervals for 

certain airplanes. This proposed AD 

results from fatigue tests and analysis by 

Boeing that identified additional areas 

of the fuselage where fatigue cracks can 

occur. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent the loss of structural integrity of 

the fuselage, which could result in rapid 

depressurization of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 8, 2009. 

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, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1, 

fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221 or 425–227–1152. 

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: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6437; 

fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2009–0655; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–192–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 

On February 16, 2006, we issued AD 

2006–05–02, amendment 39–14499 (71 

FR 10605, March 2, 2006), for all Boeing 

Model 747–200F, 747–200C, 747–400, 

747–400D, and 747–400F series 

airplanes. That AD requires repetitive 

inspections for cracking of certain 

fuselage internal structure, and repair if 

necessary. That AD resulted from 

fatigue tests and analysis that identified 

areas of the fuselage where fatigue 

cracks can occur. We issued that AD to 

prevent the loss of the structural 

integrity of the fuselage, which could 

result in rapid depressurization of the 

airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2006–05–02, 

Boeing has conducted an additional 

analysis that shows that Section 41 

fuselage frames in the areas attached to 

the upper deck floor beams are also 

prone to fatigue cracking. Cracking of 

the frames was found on the fatigue test 

airplane at about 40,000 total pressure 

cycles. As a result of the cracking, we 

have determined that additional 

inspections are necessary, as specified 

in the service information described 

below. In addition, for certain airplanes, 

we have determined that it is necessary 

to reduce the compliance time for 

certain inspections. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2500, Revision 

1, dated September 25, 2008 (‘‘Revision 

1 of the service bulletin’’). We referred 

to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2500, dated December 21, 2004, in 

AD 2006–05–02 as the appropriate 

source of service information for doing 

the actions required by that AD. 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin retains 

the procedures from the original issue, 

and adds the repetitive inspections for 

cracking in the additional areas listed in 

the table titled ‘‘New Service Bulletin 

Procedures.’’ 

NEW SERVICE BULLETIN PROCEDURES

Revision 1 of the service bulletin adds procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of— 

For airplanes identified as these 

groups in Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin— 

Area 1 (upper deck floor beams)—Inspections are added for the fuselage frames at body station (BS) 260 

to 520 in areas where the upper deck floor beams are attached.

1 through 7 inclusive, and 9 

through 10 inclusive. 

Area 6 (main entry door cutouts)—Inspections are added for the fuselage frames at BS 400 to 500 in 

areas above the main entry door 1 cutouts from the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams to stringer 8.

1 through 7 inclusive. 

The compliance times for airplane 

groups 1 through 7 and 9 through 10 

remain the same as in AD 2006–05–02 

for all inspections: 22,000 or 25,000 

total flight cycles (depending on the 

inspection area and airplane 

configuration), with a repetitive interval 

of 3,000 flight cycles. For the inspection 

of additional areas, the service bulletin 

specifies a compliance time of 22,000 

total flight cycles or 1,000 flight cycles 

after the date of Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin. 

No new inspections are added for 

Group 8 airplanes specified in Revision 

1 of the service bulletin, although 

certain inspections required by AD 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36419 

2006–05–02 continue at a reduced 

threshold. (These airplanes were 

identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2500, dated 

December 21, 2004.) Furthermore, for 

Group 8 airplanes, the service bulletin 

removed the inspection requirements 

for Areas 2 and 5. 

For Group 8 airplanes, the service 

bulletin specifies a reduced compliance 

time and reduced repetitive interval for 

continuing certain existing inspections. 

The compliance time for the initial 

inspection ranges from 15,000 total 

flight cycles to 22,000 total flight cycles 

(depending on the inspection area), or 

1,000 flight cycles after the date of 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin, 

whichever occurs later. The repetitive 

interval ranges from intervals not to 

exceed 1,500 flight cycles to intervals 

not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles 

(depending on the inspection area). 

The service bulletin specifies 

repairing any crack before further flight 

per the service bulletin or per repair 

data obtained by contacting Boeing. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to develop on 

other airplanes of the same type design. 

For this reason, we are proposing this 

AD, which would supersede AD 2006– 

05–02 and would retain the 

requirements of the existing AD. This 

proposed AD would also require 

additional inspections for certain 

airplanes, a revised inspection for 

certain airplanes, and a reduced 

compliance time for certain other 

airplanes. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 640 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. The 

average labor rate is $80 per work hour. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work 

hours Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspections (required by AD 

2006-05-02).

260 None required $20,800 per inspection cycle .... 71 $1,476,800 per inspection 

cycle. 

Inspections of additional areas 

(new proposed action).

7 None required $560 per inspection cycle ......... 71 $39,760 per inspection cycle. 

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 proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section 

for a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

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 FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing amendment 39–14499 (71 FR 

10605, March 2, 2006) and adding the 

following new AD: 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2009–0655; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–192–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by September 8, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2006–05–02. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 

747–200F, 747–200C, 747–400, 747–400D, 

and 747–400F series airplanes; certificated in 

any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from fatigue tests and 

analysis that identified additional areas of 

the fuselage where fatigue cracks can occur. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the 

structural integrity of the fuselage, which 

could result in rapid depressurization of the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006– 

05–02 With Reduced Compliance Times for 

Group 8 Airplanes 

Inspections 

(g) Do initial and repetitive inspections for 

fuselage cracks using applicable internal and 

external detailed inspection methods, and 

repair all cracks, by doing all the actions 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36420 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2500, dated December 21, 2004; or 

Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008; except 

as required by paragraph (h) or provided by 

paragraph (l) of this AD. After the effective 

date of this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2500, Revision 1, dated September 

25, 2008, must be used. Do the initial and 

repetitive inspections at the applicable times 

specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this 

AD, except as required by paragraph (j) of 

this AD. Repair any crack before further flight 

after detection. 

(1) For Groups 1 through 7, 9, and 10 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2500, Revision 1, dated September 

25, 2008: Do the initial and repetitive 

inspections at the times specified in 

paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2500, dated December 21, 

2004, except as required by paragraph (i) of 

this AD. 

(2) For Group 8 airplanes identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2500, 

Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008: Do the 

initial and repetitive inspections at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E. of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2500, 

Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008, except 

as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. 

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Procedures 

(h) If any crack is found during any 

inspection required by this AD, and Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2500, dated 

December 21, 2004, or Revision 1, dated 

September 25, 2008, specifies to contact 

Boeing for appropriate action: Before further 

flight, repair the crack using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2500, dated December 21, 2004, or 

Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008, 

specifies a compliance time after the date on 

the original issue of the service bulletin, this 

AD requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after April 6, 2006 (the 

effective date of AD 2006–05–02). 

New Requirements of This AD 

Actions for Additional Areas 

(j) For the additional inspection areas of 

Groups 1 through 7, 9, and 10 airplanes, 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2500, Revision 1, dated September 

25, 2008: Do initial and repetitive inspections 

for cracking of the inspection areas, and, as 

applicable, repair cracking, by doing all the 

actions specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2500, Revision 1, dated September 

25, 2008; except as required by paragraph (h) 

of this AD. Do the initial and repetitive 

inspections at the times specified in 

paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2500, Revision 1, dated 

September 25, 2008, except as required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD. Repair all cracking 

before further flight. 

(k) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2500, Revision 1, dated September 

25, 2008, specifies a compliance time after 

the date on Revision 1 of the service bulletin, 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(l) For Group 8 airplanes, inspection of 

Areas 2 and 5 identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2500, dated 

December 21, 2004 as required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD is no longer required. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 

Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6437; fax (425) 917–6590. Or, email information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACOAMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(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 principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(3) AMOCS approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2006–05–02, are 

approved as alternative methods of 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of this AD. 

(4) Accomplishment of the inspections 

specified in this AD is considered an AMOC 

for the applicable requirements of paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of AD 2004–07–22 R1, amendment 

39–15326, under the conditions specified in 

paragraphs (m)(4)(i) and (m)(4)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) The inspections specified in this AD 

must be done within the compliance times 

specified in AD 2004–07–22 R1. The initial 

inspection specified in this AD must be done 

at the times specified in paragraph (d) of AD 

2004–07–22 R1, and the inspections 

specified in this AD must be repeated within 

the intervals specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD. 

(ii) The AMOC applies only to the areas of 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes, 

Document D6–35022, Revision G, dated 

December 2000, that are specified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2500, dated 

December 21, 2004. 

(5) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 15, 

2009. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17448 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0606; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NE–11–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; CFM 

International, S.A Model CFM56–3B1 

and –3B2 Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain CFM International Model 

CFM56–3B1 and -3B2 turbofan engines. 

This proposed AD would require initial 

and repetitive inspections for damage to 

the fan blades. This proposed AD results 

from a report of a failed fan blade with 

severe out-of-limit wear on the 

underside of the blade platform where 

it contacts the damper. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent failure of 

multiple fan blades, which could result 

in an uncontained failure of the engine 

and damage to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by September 21, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Contact CFM International, S. A., 

Technical Publication Department, 1 

Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; 

telephone (513) 552–2800; fax (513) 

552–2816, for a copy of the service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1