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 all Lockheed Model L-1011 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9235). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 ("SFAR 88") requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the accomplishment of certain fuel system modifications, the initial inspections of certain repetitive fuel system limitations (FSLs) to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the one commenter.
Request To Supersede AD 2001-08-21, Amendment 39-12198
ATA Airlines requests that we revise the NPRM by removing the proposed requirement to accomplish the FSL specified in paragraph 2.B.(1)(d) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008. (Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, refers to Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2006, for accomplishing that FSL.) The commenter further requests that we instead issue a separate rulemaking action to supersede AD 2001-08-21 (66 FR 21072, April 27, 2001) to require the accomplishment of Revision 1 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094. (As stated in the NPRM, AD 2001-08-21 requires the accomplishment of the original issue of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094, dated March 3, 2000, but more work is necessary for Revision 1 of the service bulletin.)
We agree that it is more appropriate to require the accomplishment of Revision 1 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094 by superseding AD 2001-08-21. Our current policy specifies that, whenevera "substantive change" is made to an existing AD that imposes a new burden, we must supersede the AD. "Substantive changes" are those made to any instruction or reference that affects the substance of the AD. Substantive changes include part numbers, service bulletin and manual references, compliance times, applicability, methods of compliance, corrective action, inspection requirements, and effective dates. We consider the changes in Revision 1 of the service bulletin to be substantive. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (h) and (i) and Table 2 of this AD by removing references to paragraph 2.B.(1)(d) and Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094. Further, we will consider superseding AD 2001-08-21 with a separate rulemaking action.
Request To Extend the Compliance Time for Certain Actions
ATA Airlines requests that we extend the compliance time for accomplishing the FSLs in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(d), 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098,Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008, to the following: on or before the next heavy maintenance inspection after the effective date of the AD, but not to exceed 60 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter recommends revising the compliance time by either adding a compliance time, initial threshold, and grace period to Table 2 of the NPRM, or removing Table 2 from the NPRM and issuing separate rulemaking actions to address those FSLs. The commenter also requests that we include a note in the AD to define a heavy maintenance inspection as equivalent to a "D" check and similar to the definition in the Lockheed L-1011 Maintenance Review Board Report, dated March 1, 1998.
As justification for its request, the commenter states that the NPRM is inconsistent with other rulemaking actions addressing other airplane models. The commenter also states that those other rulemaking actions are consistent with the guidance in FAA Policy Memorandum PS- ANM112-05-001, "Policy Statementon Process for Developing SFAR 88- Related Instructions for Maintenance and Inspection of Fuel Tank Systems," dated October 6, 2004. In support of its position, the commenter refers to paragraphs 3.D, 3.D.1, and 4 of that policy memorandum, and to the "Four-Element Unsafe Condition Evaluation Criteria" section of FAA Policy Memorandum PS-ANM100-2003-112-15, "SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Design Criteria," dated February 25, 2003. The commenter contends that each identified unsafe condition and the AWL changes should be issued as separate rulemaking actions.
The commenter also contends that it would be unduly and disproportionately impacted by the proposed requirements of the NPRM. The commenter states that, for other airplane models, we have issued separate rulemaking actions to address design changes and the incorporation of AWLs for fuel tank systems into the FAA-approved maintenance program. The commenter also states that, in some instances, we have provided a compliance time of up to 5 years for accomplishing the design changes. The commenter, therefore, asserts that requiring the accomplishment of the design changes identified in Table 2 of the NPRM by December 16, 2008, is a substantial, immediate burden.
The commenter also asserts that paragraph (h) of the NPRM effectively makes the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of the NPRM retroactively applicable. The commenter notes that Table 2 does not include the compliance times recommended in those service bulletins. ATA Airlines believes that, as written, the NPRM would effectively make the compliance recommendation of up to 2-year-old service documents rule. As an example, the commenter points to Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-096, dated June 8, 2004, which recommends doing the initial inspection of the wiring harnesses of the No. 1 and No. 3 engine tank valves on or before the next heavy maintenance inspection, but not to exceed 5 years from the date of the service bulletin. That service bulletinalso recommends revising the maintenance planning documentation to require repeating the inspection at intervals not to exceed 10 years from the date of the last inspection. The commenter states that, upon issuance of the final rule, an operator is at risk of non-compliance, since it is possible for an airplane to have undergone a heavy maintenance inspection between publication of the service bulletin and the effective date of the AD without having accomplished the actions specified in the service bulletin.
We agree to extend the compliance time for accomplishing the design changes identified in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(d), 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1. We have added a new paragraph (h)(2) specifying that the FSLs in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) must be done within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. As stated previously, we have removed the requirement to accomplish the FSL in paragraph 2.B.(1)(d) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1.
However, we disagree with issuing separate ADs to address the other design changes identified in Table 2 of this AD. The policy memorandum to which the commenter refers to does not specify that the design changes must be addressed by separate rulemaking actions. We also point out that when the compliance time in an AD differs from the recommended compliance time in a service bulletin, operators are required to comply with the compliance time specified in the AD, not the service bulletin. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Request To Extend the Compliance Time of Paragraph (g)
ATA Airlines requests that we extend the compliance time by 1 year to December 16, 2009 in paragraph (g) of the NPRM. The commenter states that the airplane manufacturers of other airplane models have provided comprehensive data to support operators in complying with a compliance date of December 16, 2008. As an example, the commenter refers to Docket Nos. FAA-2006-26710, FAA-2007-28383, and FAA-2007-28384 published on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. The commenter states that those NPRMs all refer to comprehensive maintenance planning documents provided by the airplane manufacturer, and that those NPRMs provide explicit thresholds and grace periods for accomplishing many of the AWLs for fuel tank systems. The commenter also states that the airplane manufacturer either has or is providing comprehensive revisions to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to address critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) and other SFAR 88 findings. The commenter asserts that Lockheed has not provided the same level of support, which substantially increases the burden on operators. The commenter believes that, as a result of the manner and timeliness of the data provided for the Model L-1011 series airplanes, it is appropriate and justifiable to provide a 12-month graceperiod for operators to amend their maintenance programs.
We disagree with extending the compliance time for paragraph (g) of this AD. We have determined that Lockheed has met the minimum requirements for supporting operators in complying with the SFAR 88 requirements. Further, in other similar NPRMs for other airplane models, we have not provided a grace period for revising the FAA- approved maintenance program or the AWLs section of ICA, as applicable, to incorporate AWLs for fuel tank systems. As stated in the preambles of those NPRMs, we have 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 efficient and coordinated implementation of these regulations and those NPRMs, we are using this same compliance date. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Request To Extend the Comment Period
ATA Airlines requests that we extend the comment period for a minimum of 30 days. As justification, the commenter states that Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008, was not available to operators until 9 days after the NPRM was published in the Federal Register.
We disagree with extending the comment period. We have attempted to contact this commenter to better understand its needs and rationale with regard to extending the comment period. However, we have been unable to reach the commenter after numerous attempts. To further delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and it must be addressed to ensure continued safety.
Request To Revise Paragraph (b)
ATA Airlines notes that paragraph (b) of the NPRM specifies that no other airworthiness directives are affected by the NPRM. The commenter believes that this is incorrect because Lockheed Service Bulletin 093- 28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008, refers to AD 80-25-04, amendment 39-3983 (45 FR 79011, November 28, 1980); AD 99-24-12, amendment 39-11436 (64 FR 66756, November 30, 1999); and AD 2001-08-21. (AD 80-25-04 requires accomplishing the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-062, Revision 1, dated August 20, 1980. AD 99- 24-12 requires accomplishing the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-093, Revision 1, dated February 8, 1999. AD 2001-08-21 requires accomplishing the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094, dated March 3, 2000.) The commenter states that AD 2001-08-21 should be identified as a superseded AD, according to paragraph 121.b. of Section 12 of the "Airworthiness Directives Manual," FAA-IR-M-8040.1A.
We infer the commenter requests that we revise paragraph (b) of this AD to specify that this AD is related to AD 80-25-04 and AD 99-24- 12, and that it supersedes AD 2001-08-21. We disagree with revising paragraph (b) of this AD. Paragraph (b) of an AD is reserved for referencing any previously issued AD that is revised or superseded by a new AD. As stated previously, we will consider superseding AD 2001-08- 21 with a separate rulemaking action. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.
Change Made to This AD
We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate the FSLs and CDCCLs specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (h) of this AD. In the NPRM, we inadvertently omitted reference to paragraph (h).
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 108 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs
Action
Work hours
Parts
Cost per airplane
Number of U.S.-registered airplanes
Fleet cost
Maintenance program revision to incorporate FSLs and CDCCLs
4
None
$320
63
$20,160
Removal of auxiliary fuel tank No. 4, if applicable
40
None
$3,200
8
$25,600
Modification and inspection of the wiring harnesses of the fuel level control switch
19
$974
$2,494
63
$157,122
Inspection of the airplane fuel tanks, vent boxes, and bonding jumpers, and the addition of bonding jumpers to the fuel/vent tube fittings
370
$18,491
$48,091
63
$3,029,733
Identification and inspection of the FQIS wiring harnesses
4
$336
$656
63
$41,328
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, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD: