Discussion \n\n\n\tWe issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2013 (78 FR 46532). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32252). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. Although the fuel system on Model 767 airplanes differs from the Model 737 with respect to the engine fuel feed system design, service data of transport category airplanes indicates that multi-engine flameouts have generally resulted from a common cause, such as fuel mismanagement, crew action that inadvertently shut off the fuel supply to the engines, exposure to common environmental conditions, or engine deterioration on all engines of the same type. Successful in-flight restart of the engines is dependent on adequate fuel being supplied to the engines, solely through engine fuel suction feed. Deterioration of the fuel plumbing system can lead to line (vacuum) losses, reducing the engine fuel suction feed capability; therefore, directed maintenance is necessary to ensure this system is functioning correctly in order to maintain continued safe flight of the airplane. The SNPRM proposed to revise the maintenance program to incorporate a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance planning data (MPD) document, and to remove airplanes from the applicability. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. \n\nComments \n\n\n\tWe gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM (78 FR 46532, August 1, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nConcurrence With the SNPRM (78 FR 46532, August 1, 2013) \n\n\n\tBoeing stated that it concurs with the content of the SNPRM (78 FR 46532, August 1, 2013). \n\nRequest To Include Compliance Time for Initial Operational Test \n\n\n\tUnited Airlines (UAL) and UPS asked that we specify the compliance time for the initial operational test identified in the maintenance program. UAL and UPS presumed that the initial test is within 7,500 flight hours or 3 years, whichever occurs first ''after the effective date of the AD.'' \n\tWe acknowledge the commenters' request. The compliance time for theinitial operational test is based on the date the airworthiness limitation (AWL) is incorporated into the maintenance program. It would be conservative to use the effective date of this AD for accomplishing the initial test; however, this AD allows 90 days for the AWL to be incorporated. As specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, the initial test is to be done within 7,500 flight hours or 3 years, whichever occurs first after incorporation of the AWL into the maintenance program. We have not revised this final rule in this regard. \n\nRequest To Include Latest MPD Revision \n\n\n\tUAL asked that we include the latest revision of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD in the SNPRM (78 FR 46532, August 1, 2013). UAL stated that the latest revision is April 2013. \n\tWe agree that this AD should refer to the latest MPD revision. Boeing has issued Revisions April 2013, August 2013, September 2013, and November 2013 of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. We have added these revisions to paragraph (g) of this final rule as additional service information \n\n((Page 24547)) \n\nthat may be used to accomplish the required actions. \n\nRequest To Include Credit for Initial Test Using Existing Inspection Programs \n\n\n\tUPS asked that we give credit for previous accomplishment of the initial operational test. UPS stated that it has already incorporated the initial test as an existing scheduled maintenance task at its ''1C interval (24 months or 6,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first), in accordance with MSM SDN 28-22-00-5GT.'' UPS added that the interval to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-101 is 3 years or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first. UPS noted that the SNPRM (78 FR 46532, August 1, 2013) fails to provide an option to take credit for the last accomplishment of the test. \n\tWe do not agree with the commenter's request to give credit for previous accomplishment of testing of the suction feed capability under the current maintenance program. The commenter did not provide sufficient information with their comment to allow us to determine that their previous tests had the same level of effectiveness as the AWL- required test. In addition, the repetitive interval in the AWL is 3 years or 7,500 flight hours, and the initial inspection is to be done no later than 3 years or 7,500 flight hours after the AWL is incorporated into the maintenance program. The commenter stated that it currently performs its scheduled maintenance task every 24 months or 6,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first. If the commenter performs the next scheduled suction feed test using the procedures required by the AWL, without changing their currently planned time for the next inspection, it would be in compliance with the new AWL and credit for a previous test would not be necessary. Under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we may consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the current test method can be used in place of the test method required by the AWL, and provides an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to this final rule in this regard. \n\nRequest To Change Applicability Language \n\n\n\tUPS asked that we change the applicability language specified in paragraph (c) of the SNPRM (78 FR 46532, August 1, 2013), which specifies the affected models have received a certificate of airworthiness or foreign export certificate of airworthiness before November 2, 2012. UPS recommended that the language be changed to capture any Model 767 airplanes subject to the requirements of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, including AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of Section D., Airworthiness Limitations--Systems, as of November 2, 2012 (the original publication date) ofthe Boeing 767 MPD Document. UPS stated that the applicability range specified in paragraph (c) of the SNPRM does not include eight additional Model 767-300F airplanes currently operated by UPS that were delivered after November 2, 2012. \n\tWe do not agree to change the applicability language to capture Model 767 airplanes per the commenter's request. The intent of the cutoff date of November 2, 2012, as specified in the applicability of this AD, is to require a common operational test to apply to both the in-production and previously delivered airplanes. Production airplanes delivered after November 2, 2012, already receive a maintenance program that includes this operational test. Operators are required to comply with the AWLs in the documents provided with a new airplane. This AD would capture airplanes outside that group. However, we have included a clarification in paragraph (c) of this final rule to specify that the AD applies to airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued before November 2, 2012. \n\nClarification of Paragraph (h) of This AD \n\n\n\tWe have revised paragraph (h) of this AD by removing the reference to the critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). AWL No. 28-AWL-101 is not a CDCCL. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tWe 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. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 406 airplanes of U.S. registry. \n\tWe estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per Cost on U.S. \n\tAction Labor cost Parts cost product operators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revise airworthiness limitations.... 1 work-hour x $85 per $0 $85 $34,510 \n\thour = $85. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\n\tTitle 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. \n\tWe 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tThis 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, \n\t(2) Is not a ''significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), \n\t(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and \n\n((Page 24548)) \n\n\n\t(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. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.