Document ID: FAA-2007-0089-0008
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport Category Airplanes Equipped With Auxiliary Fuel Tanks Installed in Accordance With Certain Supplemental Type Certificates
Posted Date: 2008-06-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 31749-31752]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-1]                         

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================

[[Page 31749]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0089; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-117-AD; 
Amendment 39-15546; AD 2008-12-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

 
Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport Category Airplanes 
Equipped With Auxiliary Fuel Tanks Installed in Accordance With Certain 
Supplemental Type Certificates

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various 
transport category airplanes. This AD requires deactivation of Rogerson 
Aircraft Corporation auxiliary fuel tanks. This AD results from fuel 
system reviews conducted by the manufacturer, which identified 
potential unsafe conditions for which the manufacturer has not provided 
corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of 
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with 
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and 
consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 9, 2008.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document 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: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, 
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5254; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to 
various transport category airplanes. That NPRM was published in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 2007 (72 FR 60600). That NPRM proposed 
to require deactivation of Rogerson Aircraft Corporation auxiliary fuel 
tanks.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Remove Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) From 
Applicability

    Southeast Aero-Tek requests that we remove STC SA1054NW from the 
applicability of the NPRM. The commenter states that this STC has been 
purchased from Rogerson and assigned to the FAA's Atlanta Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO).
    We disagree with the request. STC SA1054NW is not compliant with 
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,'' Amendment 21-
78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83), included in a 
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, 
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements'' 
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001).
    In a letter dated July 30, 2007, Rogerson states that ownership of 
STC SA1054NW was transferred to Executive Jet Aircraft Co., Ltd. In 
this case, although the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) has 
geographic responsibility, the Los Angeles ACO is the appropriate 
office to review and approve alternative methods of compliance to the 
requirements of this AD. This AD is intended to require deactivation of 
all affected auxiliary fuel tanks for which Rogerson was the original 
STC holder, regardless of current ownership of the associated STCs. We 
have not changed the AD regarding this issue.

Request To Extend Compliance Time: Lack of Notification

    In a comment submitted December 5, 2007, Dallah Albaraka states 
that it received no FAA notification of the NPRM and discovered its 
existence only ``recently.'' The commenter questions whether the 
outreach provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act were properly 
exercised, given the significant economic impact, and a lack of other 
comments posted from other affected operators, which the commenter 
attributes to lack of notification. Dallah Albaraka adds that the 
proposed December 2008 deadline is insufficient for an operator to 
budget and acquire alternative methods to conduct air operations. For 
Dallah Albaraka, the proposed deactivation will require divesting an 
existing airplane and acquiring a new airplane with a range that meets 
operational needs. Dallah Albaraka will not be able to do this by 
December 2008.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting an extension of the 
compliance time. We disagree that the compliance time should be 
extended. The compliance time specified in this AD is necessary to 
prevent the unsafe condition. The outreach provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to which the commenter refers apply only when a 
rulemaking action will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small businesses. Based on the estimated cost of 
compliance with the actions directly required by this AD, we determined 
that this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic 
impact. However, the NPRM would not prohibit extended range operations 
using auxiliary fuel tanks, if the tanks are compliant with SFAR 88 
requirements. We have made every effort to communicate with industry 
and operators about the requirements of complying with SFAR 88, through 
FAA-sponsored seminars and regulatory amendments and provisions for 
compliance. We do not individually notify persons of proposed

[[Page 31750]]

ADs that might affect them. Instead, government agencies publish 
proposed rules in the Federal Register to notify the public and solicit 
comments. As previously stated, this AD was first published as a 
proposal in the Federal Register. Individuals should frequently monitor 
the Federal Register's publications for proposed rules that may affect 
them.
    In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount 
of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA 
has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their 
maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The 
compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide 
for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this AD, we are 
including this same compliance date in this AD. However, ADs apply to 
only U.S. registered airplanes. If the commenter's affected airplanes 
are not registered in the U.S., the commenter may wish to discuss the 
requirements of this AD with the authority for the country of registry. 
We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Extend Compliance Time: Lack of Manufacturer Support

    Marbyia Investments requests that we extend the deadline to comply 
with the proposed actions. Based on Rogerson's lack of response to the 
SFAR 88 requirements, Marbyia and the other operators of Rogerson 
systems must make alternative arrangements to comply.
    We disagree with the request to extend the compliance time for the 
reasons explained in our response to the previous comment. In addition, 
this commenter did not request a specific compliance time or present 
any data that would support use of a different method of compliance or 
justify an extension of the compliance time. However, ADs apply to only 
U.S. registered airplanes. It is our understanding that the commenter's 
affected airplanes are not registered in the U.S. If this is the case, 
the commenter may wish to discuss the requirements of this AD with the 
authority for the country of registry. We have not changed the final 
rule regarding this issue.

Requests To Revise Cost Estimate

    Dallah Albaraka states that we greatly underestimated the costs to 
comply with the proposed actions. The commenter asserts that 
deactivating the auxiliary tanks will have a significant detrimental 
impact on the long-range capabilities of each airplane. The result will 
be greater operational costs necessary for operators to find 
alternative modes of travel, incur additional takeoffs and landings, or 
acquire other airplanes with the necessary range. Marbyia Investments 
adds that the consequences of the STC suspension will create large 
financial and operational burdens, probably making the future use of 
its aircraft untenable.
    Dallah Albaraka also asserts that, because of the payload detriment 
of hundreds of pounds of empty tanks, no operator would deactivate the 
tanks without removing them from the airplane. The commenter requests 
that we revise the cost estimate to include costs to remove and dispose 
of the tanks as potential hazardous materials. In addition, the 
commenter requests that we include the cost of developing and obtaining 
a ``separate design approval'' since this conditional burden would be 
borne by the operators.
    Dallah Albaraka also states that deactivating the auxiliary tank 
would significantly decrease the value of the airplane. Without the 
long-range capability provided by the auxiliary tanks, Dallah Albaraka 
states that its Model 727 airplane would be inoperable, and attempts to 
market the airplane have been unsuccessful due to the potential effect 
of the NPRM.
    Another commenter, Southeast Aero-Tek, notes that, because of the 
construction of the ``box and bladder,'' accessing the bladders would 
necessitate removing the boxes, and removing the bladders would involve 
several major structural repairs and plumbing modifications.
    We infer that the commenters are requesting that we revise the cost 
estimate in the NPRM to account for the additional costs referred to in 
their comments. We disagree. The cost information in an AD generally 
includes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by this 
AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, 
operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. 
Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, 
are almost impossible to calculate. We have not changed the final rule 
regarding this issue.

Request To Revise NPRM To Require Viable Modification

    Dallah Albaraka requests that we delay issuing the final rule until 
Rogerson can supply service information. Since the NPRM specifies a 
modification that would allow continued use of the tanks, the operator 
is burdened with developing an STC as an alternative method of 
compliance to the proposed deactivation. The commenter states that, if 
this is the only viable option to operators that need the extended 
range provided by the auxiliary tanks, we should coordinate development 
of the STC with Rogerson, and revise the AD to require the STC 
modification as the primary compliance method.
    We do not agree to delay the issuance of this AD. In many cases, 
manufacturers do develop modifications to correct unsafe conditions. In 
this case, Rogerson has chosen not to do so. Our obligation is to 
ensure that airplanes with the subject auxiliary fuel tanks are safe to 
operate. In the absence of a commitment by Rogerson to develop the 
necessary modifications, we have no other course of action to ensure 
the safe operation of the affected airplanes than to require the 
deactivation of the tanks.

Request To Revise NPRM Based on Differential Use and Configuration

    Dallah Albaraka states that the NPRM does not consider the various 
STC configurations for the auxiliary tank installation and the 
corresponding levels of safety they provide. The commenter adds that 
the NPRM does not consider operators' varying levels of utilization of 
the affected airplanes.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting that we revise the NPRM 
to provide unique requirements based on airplane configuration and 
utilization rates. We disagree. Regardless of utilization, the fuel 
tanks that are installed in accordance with the referenced STCs exhibit 
unsafe conditions. These unsafe conditions must be corrected to provide 
an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule in 
this regard.

Request To Allow Alternative Methods

    Dallah Albaraka states that the NPRM does not provide for 
inspections as a way to extend the compliance time. The commenter 
states that periodic verification of the system condition and operation 
would address all aspects identified as safety concerns in the proposed 
AD. In addition, the commenter notes that the NPRM describes safety 
concerns associated with ``dry running'' the fuel pumps. The commenter 
asserts that these concerns were addressed for Boeing Model 727 
airplanes by simple operational limitations (including placards and AFM 
revisions), as specified in AD 2005-13-40, amendment 39-14177 (70 FR 
37659, June 30, 2005). The commenter states that those limitations

[[Page 31751]]

ensure that the fuel pumps are not operated when the tanks are empty. 
The commenter requests that we revise the AD to provide other ways to 
comply with the NPRM other than by deactivating the auxiliary fuel 
tanks.
    We disagree. AD 2005-13-40 addresses one unique unsafe condition 
associated with the fuel pumps installed in a Boeing-designed auxiliary 
fuel tank system. In the case of the STCs affected by this AD, there 
are other potential unsafe conditions for which simple operational 
limitations would not be effective. We have not changed the final rule 
regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Compliance Method

    Southeast Aero-Tek disagrees with the Appendix A criteria provided 
in the NPRM. Service bulletins containing similar criteria have been 
rejected. According to the commenter, the only acceptable compliance 
method should involve removing the system and restoring affected 
airplanes to their original configuration--consistent with the service 
bulletins.
    We partially agree. We have no record of the commenter's service 
bulletins being rejected. But the NPRM does provide for the complete 
removal of the system, when additional information is provided to and 
approved by the FAA. The intent of the NPRM is to prevent usage of 
Rogerson auxiliary tanks by their deactivation. Any approved service 
bulletin for complete removal would meet the intent of this AD. We have 
not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request for Consideration of Specific Proposal

    Southeast Aero-Tek states that the cylindrical tank system could 
retain its bleed air system to purge the tanks with bleed air if the 
vent valve were opened.
    We infer that the commenter is proposing a specific solution to one 
issue related to tank deactivation. Such a proposal should instead be 
submitted to the FAA as a request for approval of an alternative method 
of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (h) 
of this AD. However, the commenter should note that its request is not 
consistent with the deactivation criteria stated in paragraph (3) of 
Appendix A of this AD.

Information Collection Approval

    Paragraph (f) of this AD has been revised to note the Office of 
Management and Budget's approval of the information collection 
requirements in this AD.

Request To Correct Typographical Error

    Southeast Aero-Tek notes an incorrect title in Appendix A, 
paragraph (4), of the NPRM, for AC 25-8. We have revised the final rule 
accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that 
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 148 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for 
the 39 U.S.-registered airplanes to comply with this AD. Based on these 
figures, the estimated costs for U.S. operators could be as high as 
$252,720 to submit the report and prepare the deactivation procedures, 
and $140,400 to deactivate the tank.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Average labor
             Action                  Work hours     rate per hour        Parts             Individual cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report..........................                1              $80            None  $80, per airplane.
Preparation of tank deactivation               80               80            None  $6,400, per airplane.
 procedure.
Physical tank deactivation......               30               80          $1,200  $3,600, per airplane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of 
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-12-03 Various Transport Category Airplanes: Amendment 39-15546. 
Docket No. FAA-2007-0089; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-117-AD.

[[Page 31752]]

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 9, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to airplanes, certificated in any category 
and equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks installed in accordance with 
specified Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs), as identified in 
Table 1 of this AD.

                      Table 1.--Affected Airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Airplanes                        Auxiliary tank STC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Model 707 airplanes.........  SA4053WE, SA1308NM
Boeing Model 727-100 series          SA2970WE, SA3674WE, SA3157WE,
 airplanes.                           SA3319WE, SA3559WE, SA2734WE,
                                      SA3920NM, SA3810WE, SA1979NM,
                                      SA1398NM, SA3483WE
Boeing Model 727-200 series          SA3065WE, SA1051NW
 airplanes.
Boeing Model 737-200 series          SA1082NW, SA2153WE, SA1054NW
 airplanes.
Boeing Model 737-400 and -500        SA3992NM, SA3980NM
 series airplanes.
Boeing Model 767-200 series          SA5544NM
 airplanes.
British Aerospace Model 1-11-400     SA1995WE, SA1626WE, SA3819WE,
 series airplanes.                    SA2971WE
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15 and  SA3558WE, SA2587WE, SA1050NW
 DC-9-15F airplanes.
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-32F (C- SA3436NM, SA3495NM
 9B) airplanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the 
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of 
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with 
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and 
consequent loss of the airplane.

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.

Report

    (f) Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD, submit a 
report to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA. Information collection requirements in this AD are 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
and are assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. The report must 
include the following information:
    (1) The airplane registration and auxiliary tank STC number 
installed.
    (2) The usage frequency in terms of total number of flights per 
year and total number of flights for which the auxiliary tank is 
used.

Prevent Usage of Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

    (g) On or before December 16, 2008, deactivate the auxiliary 
fuel tanks, in accordance with a deactivation procedure approved by 
the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO. Any auxiliary tank component 
that remains on the airplane must be secured and must have no effect 
on the continued operational safety and airworthiness of the 
airplane. Deactivation may not result in the need for additional 
instructions for continued airworthiness.

    Note 1: Appendix A of this AD provides criteria that should be 
included in the deactivation procedure. The proposed deactivation 
procedures should be submitted to the Los Angeles ACO as soon as 
possible to ensure timely review and approval.

    Note 2: For technical information, contact John Cox, Director of 
Engineering, Rogerson Aircraft Corporation, 16940 Von Karman, 
Irvine, California 92606; phone (949) 442-2381; fax (949) 442-2311.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, has the authority to 
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) None.

Appendix A--Deactivation Criteria

    The auxiliary fuel tank deactivation procedure required by 
paragraph (g) of this AD should address the following actions.
    (1) Permanently drain auxiliary fuel tanks, and clear them of 
fuel vapors to eliminate the possibility of out-gassing of fuel 
vapors from the emptied auxiliary tank.

    Note: If applicable, removing the bladder might help eliminate 
out-gassing.

    (2) Disconnect all electrical connections from the fuel quantity 
indication system (FQIS), fuel pumps if applicable, float switches, 
and all other electrical connections required for auxiliary tank 
operation, and stow them at the auxiliary tank interface.
    (3) Disconnect all pneumatic connections if applicable, cap them 
at the pneumatic source, and secure them.
    (4) Disconnect all fuel feed and fuel vent plumbing interfaces 
with airplane original equipment manufacturer (OEM) tanks, cap them 
at the airplane tank side, and secure them in accordance with a 
method approved by the FAA; one approved method is specified in AC 
25-8 Fuel Tank Systems Installations. In order to eliminate the 
possibility of structural deformation during cabin decompression, 
leave open and secure the disconnected auxiliary fuel tank vent 
lines.
    (5) Pull and collar all circuit breakers used to operate the 
auxiliary tank.
    (6) Revise the weight and balance document, if required, and 
obtain FAA approval.
    (7) Amend the applicable sections of the applicable airplane 
flight manual (AFM) to indicate that the auxiliary fuel tank is 
deactivated. Remove auxiliary fuel tank operating procedures to 
ensure that only the OEM fuel system operational procedures are 
contained in the AFM. Amend the Limitations Section of the AFM to 
indicate that the AFM Supplement for the STC is not in effect. Place 
a placard in the flight deck indicating that the auxiliary tank is 
deactivated. The AFM revisions specified in this paragraph may be 
accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
    (8) Amend the applicable sections of the applicable airplane 
maintenance manual to remove auxiliary tank maintenance procedures.
    (9) After the auxiliary fuel tank is deactivated, accomplish 
procedures such as leak checks and pressure checks deemed necessary 
before returning the airplane to service. These procedures must 
include verification that the airplane FQIS and fuel distribution 
systems have not been adversely affected.
    (10) Include with the operator's proposed procedures any 
relevant information or additional steps that are deemed necessary 
by the operator to comply with the deactivation and return the 
airplane to service.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 29, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-12413 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P