Data Mining and National Security

From the Congressional Research Service Report.

Travel & Carbon Offset

See page 8 of this report.

Most dangerous part of the trip. . .

Runway Incursions.

Prepare to wait

Summer Travel Season.

Virgin American's Motion for Confidential Treatment

And opposing filings.

AMR and United

SkyCap Tips.

7-3 report of 18 inch crack in fuselage skin

[Federal Register: April 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 80)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22088-22090]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ap08-9]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0412; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-346-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
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 737-300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive
inspections for discrepancies of the fuselage skin under the dorsal fin
assembly, and repairing if necessary. This proposed AD would require an
inspection for any chafing or crack in the fuselage skin and abrasion
resistant coating at the dorsal fin landing, an inspection for damage
to the dorsal fin seals, attach clip, and seal retainer, and other
specified and corrective actions as necessary. The new proposed
requirements would end the need for the existing repetitive
inspections. This proposed AD results from a report of an 18-inch crack
found in the fuselage skin area under the blade seals of the nose cap
of the dorsal fin due to previous wear damage, and additional reports
of fuselage skin wear. We are proposing this AD to prevent
discrepancies of the fuselage skin, which could result in fatigue
cracking due to cabin pressurization and consequent rapid in-flight
decompression of the airplane fuselage.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 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 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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; 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-2008-0412;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-346-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 October 18, 2004, we issued AD 2004-22-05, amendment 39-13833
(69 FR 62567, October 27, 2004), for all Boeing Model 737-300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes. That AD requires inspecting for
discrepancies of the fuselage skin under the dorsal fin assembly, and
repairing if necessary. That AD resulted from a report of an 18-inch
crack found in the fuselage skin area under the blade seals of the nose
cap of the dorsal fin due to previous wear damage. We issued that AD to
find and fix discrepancies of the fuselage skin, which could result in
fatigue cracking due to cabin pressurization, and consequent rapid in-
flight decompression of the airplane fuselage.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

Since we issued AD 2004-22-05, we have received additional reports
of fuselage skin wear found during routine maintenance inspections and
accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1057, dated December
12, 1996, and Revision 1, dated July 22, 1999. (Revision 1 of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-55-1057 was cited as an additional source of
service information for inspecting for discrepancies of the fuselage
skin under the dorsal fin assembly.) As a result, the manufacturer has
developed a new corrective action and terminating action to adequately
address the unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1266, dated
August 30, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a
detailed inspection for any chafing or crack in the fuselage skin and
abrasion resistant coating at the dorsal fin landing and a detailed
inspection for damage to the dorsal fin seals, attach clip, and seal
retainer.
The service bulletin also describes procedures for doing other
specified and corrective actions as necessary. The other specified
action is to install wear strips if no skin wear is found during the
inspection. The corrective actions include (1) replacing the dorsal fin
seals with new seals if any damaged seal is found, (2) replacing the
seal retainers

[[Page 22089]]

and attach clip with new parts, if any damaged retainers or clips are
found, or if they have not been installed in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-55-1057, and (3) repairing the fuselage skin if
any crack or damage is found. For certain airplanes, the repair
includes contacting Boeing for repair instructions, installing wear
strips, or repairing as given in the structural repair manual, as
applicable. For certain other airplanes, the repair includes removing
any previously installed repair doubler and repairing as given in the
applicable structural repair manual, ensuring that the previous repairs
did not have countersunk fasteners that knife edged the skin, doing a
high frequency eddy current inspection of the outer row fasteners for
any eye-brow or hole crack and repairing as applicable, ensuring that
fastener spacing and size are within the acceptable limits, and
extending the new repair doubler a minimum of two fastener rows beyond
the critical row of the outer fastener row of the previous repair.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
The service bulletin specifies that the detailed inspection and
other specified action be done within 18,000 flight cycles or 72
months, whichever occurs later. For certain airplanes, the service
bulletin specifies that the removal of the previously installed repair
doubler and the repair be done within 18,000 flight cycles or 72
months, whichever occurs later. The service bulletin also specifies
that the corrective actions be done before further flight.

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 2004-22-05 and would retain the requirements of the
existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the
actions specified in service information described previously, except
as discussed under ``Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service
Bulletin.'' The new proposed requirements would end the need for the
existing repetitive inspections.

Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
Using a method that we approve; or
Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Change to Existing AD

Boeing Commercial Airplanes has received a Delegation Option
Authorization (DOA). We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to
delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance
for any repair required by this AD to an Authorized Representative for
the Boeing Commercial Airplanes DOA rather than a Designated
Engineering Representative (DER).

Costs of Compliance

There are about 1,963 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 627 airplanes of
U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2004-22-05 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the currently required actions for U.S. operators is $100,320, or
$160 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The new proposed actions would take about 15 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts
would cost about $801 per airplane. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the new actions specified in this proposed AD for
U.S. operators is $1,254,627, or $2,001 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

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, 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.


Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
removing amendment 39-13833 (69 FR 62567, October 27, 2004) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0412; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
346-AD.

Comments Due Date

(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 9,
2008.

Affected ADs

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-22-05.

[[Page 22090]]

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD results from a report of an 18-inch crack found in
the fuselage skin area under the blade seals of the nose cap of the
dorsal fin due to previous wear damage, and additional reports of
fuselage skin wear. We are issuing this AD to prevent discrepancies
of the fuselage skin, which could result in fatigue cracking due to
cabin pressurization and consequent rapid in-flight decompression of
the airplane fuselage.

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.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004-22-05

Repetitive Detailed Inspections

(f) For airplanes specified in either paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2),
(f)(3), or (f)(4) of this AD: Accomplish a detailed inspection for
discrepancies (wear or cracking) of the fuselage skin under the
dorsal fin assembly by doing all the actions specified in Boeing
Message Number 1-QXO35, dated October 13, 2004. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight
cycles. Accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections
required by this paragraph.

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.''

(1) For airplanes with line numbers 1001 through 2828 inclusive
that have not been inspected as of November 12, 2004 (the effective
date of AD 2004-22-05), in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
737-55-1057, dated December 12, 1996; or Revision 1, dated July 22,
1999: Inspect before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles,
or within 90 days after November 12, 2004, whichever is later.
(2) For airplanes with line numbers 2829 through 3132 inclusive
that are not included in the effectivity of Boeing Service Bulletin
737-55-1057, dated December 12, 1996; or Revision 1, dated July 22,
1999: Inspect before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles,
or within 90 days after November 12, 2004, whichever is later.
(3) For airplanes with line numbers 1001 through 2828 inclusive
that have been inspected, but not repaired or modified as of the
effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-55-1057, dated December 12, 1996; or Revision 1, dated
July 22, 1999: Inspect within 9,000 flight cycles after
accomplishing the inspection, or within 90 days after November 12,
2004, whichever is later.
(4) For airplanes with line numbers 1001 through 2828 inclusive
that have been inspected and repaired or modified as of the
effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-55-1057, dated December 12, 1996; or Revision 1, dated
July 22, 1999: Inspect within 18,000 flight cycles after
accomplishing the repair or modification, or within 90 days after
November 12, 2004, whichever is later; and if a repair doubler is
installed, before further flight, inspect the repair doubler for
discrepancies (wear or cracking).

Note 2: Boeing Message Number 1-QXO35, dated October 13, 2004,
references Part I of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1057, Revision
1, dated July 22, 1999, as an additional source of service
information for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (f)
of this AD.

Repair

(g) If any discrepancy (wear or cracking) is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, before further
flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(1) of this AD.

Reporting Not Required

(h) Although Boeing Message Number 1-QXO35, dated October 13,
2004, specifies to report any fuselage skin cracking found during
the detailed inspections, this AD does not include that requirement.

New Requirements of This AD

New Inspections and Other Specified and Corrective Actions

(i) At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph
1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1266, dated August 30,
2007, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: Do a detailed
inspection for any chafing or crack in the fuselage skin of the
dorsal fin landing and abrasion resistant coating, do a detailed
inspection for damage to dorsal fin seals, attach clip, and seal
retainer, and do all the applicable other specified and corrective
actions, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in
the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as
provided by paragraph (k) of this AD. Accomplishing all of the
applicable actions specified in this paragraph terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD.

Exception to Compliance Times

(j) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1266, dated
August 30, 2007, specifies counting the compliance time from ``* * *
the date on the service bulletin,'' this AD requires counting the
compliance time from the effective date of this AD.

Exception to Corrective Actions

(k) If any damage is found aft of body station 908 during any
inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1266, dated August 30, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the fuselage skin
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (l) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 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.
(3) 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.
(4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2004-22-05
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this AD.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-8913 Filed 4-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Hearings on the DAL/NWA proposed merger

Begin May 7, 2008.

National Transportation Safety Board

Testimony before Aviation Subcommittee.

International Registered Traveler

Application Details.

White House Wants Visitors Finger Printed.


Alien Biometric Data, see federal register, april 24, 2008.

76 fuel filter

[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21811-21813]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-2]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0411; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD;
Amendment 39-15488; AD 2008-09-07]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes and Model
767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
series airplanes. This AD requires revising the Limitations section of
the airplane flight manual to advise the flight crew of procedures to
follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass condition due to
gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely manner. This AD was
prompted by an error in the operating program software (OPS) of the
engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). The error prevents
the display of an advisory message to the flight crew of a left engine
fuel filter contamination and imminent bypass condition, which may
indicate an imminent multiple engine thrust loss or engine malfunction
event due to fuel contamination. We are issuing this AD to prevent
malfunction and thrust loss on both engines, which could result in a
forced off-airport landing.

DATES: This AD is effective May 8, 2008.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 23, 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.

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 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: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind

[[Page 21812]]

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6497;
fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We have been advised that an operator discovered an error in the
Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) operating program
software (OPS) Version 6. This software error prevents the display of
the ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' advisory message to the flight crew. This
message was intended to be displayed if an impending clogging condition
of the left engine fuel filter exists. (The corresponding message for
the right engine functions normally.) Boeing has determined that this
software error is isolated to the EICAS OPS Version 6. This software is
currently approved for installation on all Boeing Model 757 airplanes,
and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F series airplanes. (Model 767-
400ER series airplanes use different software.) OPS Version 6 was
approved in mid-2007 for production and retrofit installation. Boeing's
records show that the majority of the affected airplanes currently have
Version 6 software installed. Absence of an engine fuel filter bypass
indication for each engine eliminates the only effective advance
warning the flight crew will receive of potential engine malfunction
due to a gross fuel contamination event on the airplane. Without such
advance warning, malfunction and thrust loss on both engines due to
fuel contamination could cause a forced off-airport landing.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type
design(s). This AD requires revising the Limitations section of the
airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the flight crew of procedures to
follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass condition due to
gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely manner.
The actions specified by paragraph (f) of this AD are not required
when all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet have been verified
by the operator to have an EICAS computer with a particular part number
and EICAS OPS versions other than Version 6 software. This exception is
currently available for Model 757 and 767 passenger airplanes and for
new production freighter airplanes, but will be available for non-
production-modified freighter airplanes only when OPS versions later
than Version 6 software become available. Non-production-modified
freighter airplanes include, but are not limited to, Model 757
airplanes modified in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) ST01920LA, and Model 767 series airplanes modified in accordance
with design approvals granted to Boeing for the Boeing Converted
Freighter (BCF) or Special Freighter (SF) configurations. Only OPS
Version 6 software or a later OPS version was approved by the FAA for
use on non-production-modified freighter airplanes; this is because
cargo door indications required for certification of those freighter
conversion modifications were introduced at Version 6.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil
aircraft, and thus the critical need to ensure that the flight crew has
procedures to follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass
condition due to gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely
manner, and because of the short compliance time involved with this
action, this AD must be issued immediately.
Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-0411; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this 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 AD.

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.

[[Page 21813]]

Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

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

2008-09-07 Boeing: Amendment 39-15488. Docket No. FAA-2008-0411;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD.

Effective Date

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 8, 2008.

Affected ADs

(b) None.

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD was prompted by an error in the operating program
software (OPS) of the engine indication and crew alerting system
(EICAS). The error prevents the display of an advisory message to
the flight crew of a left engine fuel filter contamination and
imminent bypass condition, which may indicate an imminent multiple
engine thrust loss or engine malfunction event due to fuel
contamination. We are issuing this AD to prevent malfunction and
thrust loss on both engines, which could result in a forced off-
airport landing.

Compliance

(e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Revision of Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

(f) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations section of the applicable AFM to include the
following. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the
AFM.

``If the STATUS cue shows while on the ground after engine start
or during flight, select the status page on the secondary EICAS
display, and verify the ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' message is not shown. If
the ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' message is not shown on the status page, the
secondary engine parameters may be reselected on the secondary EICAS
display, or the display may be blanked. If the ``L ENG FUEL FILT''
message is shown on the status display, accomplish the ENGINE FUEL
FILTER non-normal checklist as published in the Boeing Quick
Reference Handbook. If on the ground, check the Dispatch Deviations
Guide (DDG), or operator equivalent.
In the event that the status level ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' and
advisory level ``R ENG FUEL FILT'' messages are simultaneously
shown, an impending fuel filter bypass condition exists on both
engines. With both messages shown, airplane fuel system
contamination may be present and may result in erratic engine
operation or flameout.
Further flight crew action in response to either or both the ``L
ENG FUEL FILT'' status-level message and the ``R ENG FUEL FILT''
advisory level messages being shown are not established by Boeing or
the FAA. Any further flight crew action should be determined by
individual operator policy.
Boeing policy on flight crew use of status-level messages has
not changed. After engine start, any condition having an adverse
effect on safe continuation of the flight appears as an EICAS alert
message (Warning, Caution, or Advisory). If other status-level
messages are shown as a consequence of complying with these
temporary operating instructions, the flight crew should respond in
accordance with the appropriate operator policy.
Dispatch of the airplane with an inoperative EICAS display unit
is prohibited.

(g) If all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet have been
verified by the operator to have EICAS computer part number
S242N701-1001 and only EICAS OPS versions other than Version 6
software that are FAA approved for that airplane, then
accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD
is not required.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone (425) 917-6497; 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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

(i) None.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 14, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-8653 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

LAX

No reasonable suspicion necessary to search contents of your hard drive.

Robert Crandall's editorial

Only the FEDS can save the airlines.

Smack Down over "Rule 240"

The debate over what duty an airline that fails to deliver you to your destination has toward you in its contract of carriage. Does it have a duty at all?

The delicate balance between security and liberty

in the EU after 9/11.

NTSB

Stats.

passengers file suit against SWA over failure to inspect

Negligent Operation of an Aircraft. More at OnPointNews.

The Gobmn'ts new Lie Detector

Mental Math. Sure. And don't forget, women have TWO spinchers.

Denied Boarding Compensation-Published in Federal Register

[Federal Register: April 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21026-21035]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ap08-3]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 250

[Docket No. DOT-OST-01-9325]
RIN No. 2105-AD63


Oversales and Denied Boarding Compensation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is
amending its rules relating to oversales and denied boarding
compensation to increase the limits on the compensation paid to
``bumped'' passengers, to cover flights by certain U.S. and foreign air
carriers operated with aircraft seating 30 through 60 passengers, which
are currently exempt from the rule, and to make other changes. These
changes are intended to maintain consumer protection commensurate with
developments in the aviation industry. This action is taken on the
Department's initiative and in response to a petition from the Air
Transport Association.

DATES: This rule is effective May 19, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Kelly, Aviation Consumer
Protection Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-
366-5952 (voice), 202-366-5944 (fax), tim.kelly@dot.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Part 250 establishes minimum standards for the treatment of airline
passengers holding confirmed reservations on certain U.S. and foreign
carriers who are involuntarily denied boarding (``bumped'') from
flights that are oversold. In most cases, bumped passengers are
entitled to compensation. Part 250 sets the minimum amount of
compensation that is required to be provided to passengers who are
bumped involuntarily. Until now the rule has not applied to flights
operated with aircraft with a design capacity of 60 or fewer passenger
seats.
In adopting the original rule in the 1960s, the Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB), the Department's predecessor in aviation economic
regulation, recognized the inherent unfairness in carriers selling more
``confirmed'' reservations for a flight than they have seats.
Therefore, the CAB sought to reduce the number of passengers
involuntarily denied boarding to the smallest practicable number
without prohibiting deliberate overbooking or interfering unnecessarily
with the carriers' reservations practices. Air travelers receive some
benefit from controlled overbooking because it allows flexibility in
making and canceling reservations as well as buying and refunding
tickets. Overbooking makes possible a system of confirmed reservations
that can almost always be honored. It allows airlines to fill more
seats, reducing the pressure for higher fares, and makes it easier for
people to obtain reservations on the flights of their choice. On the
other hand, overbooking is the major cause of oversales, and the people
who are inconvenienced are not those who do not show up for their
flights, but passengers who have conformed to all carrier rules. The
current rule allocates the risk of being denied boarding among
travelers by requiring airlines to solicit volunteers and use a
boarding priority procedure that is not unjustly discriminatory.
In 1981, the CAB amended the oversales rule to exclude from the
rule all operations using aircraft with 60 or fewer passenger seats.
(ER-1237, 46 FR 42442, August 21, 1981.) At the time of that
proceeding, the impact of the rule on carriers operating small aircraft
was found to be significant. If a passenger was denied boarding on a
typical small-aircraft short-haul flight and subsequently missed a
connection to a long-haul flight, the short-haul carrier usually had to
compensate the passenger in an amount equal to twice the value of the
passenger's remaining ticket coupons to his or her destination, subject
to a maximum limitation. For example, if the short-haul fare was $50
and the connecting long-haul fare was $500, the first carrier often had
to pay the passenger denied boarding compensation in an amount far
greater than $50, depending on whether alternate transportation could
be arranged to arrive within a short time, despite the minimal fare
that the first carrier received for its flight. The problem was
exacerbated by the fact that most commuter airline flights at the time
were on small turboprop and piston engine aircraft which were affected
by weight limitations in high temperature/humidity conditions to a
greater extent than jets and, therefore, might require bumping even
when the carrier did not book beyond the seating capacity of the
aircraft.
Part 250 has tended to reduce passenger inconvenience and financial
loss occasioned by overbooking without imposing heavy burdens on the
airlines or significant costs on the traveling

[[Page 21027]]

public. In focusing only on the treatment of passengers whose boarding
is involuntarily denied, we have avoided regulating carriers'
reservations practices. Overall, it appears that the rule has served a
useful purpose; however, in light of recommendations from various
sources, including Congress, the Department's Inspector General, and
major airlines themselves, we reviewed the rule and have decided to
revise certain aspects of the rule that we believe are outdated. In
view of the passage of time since the rule was last revised and changes
in commercial air travel over that time, we have decided to increase
the compensation maximums and extend the rule to cover a broader range
of aircraft. The Department is also making certain other changes of
lesser impact.

The Current Denied Boarding Compensation Rule

The purpose of the Department's denied boarding compensation rule
is to balance the rights of passengers holding reservations with the
desirability of allowing air carriers to minimize the adverse economic
effects of ``no-shows'' (passengers with reservations who cancel or
change their flights at the last minute, or who fail to appear and
provide no notice). The rule sets up a two-part system. The first
encourages passengers to voluntarily relinquish their confirmed
reservations in exchange for compensation agreed to between the
passenger and the airline. The second requires that, where there is an
insufficient number of volunteers, passengers who are bumped
involuntarily be given compensation in an amount specified in the rule.
In addition, the Department requires carriers to give passengers notice
of those procedures through signs and written notices provided with
tickets and at airports, and to report the number of passengers denied
boarding to the Department on a quarterly basis.
The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) first required payments to bumped
passengers over 46 years ago. In Order No. E-17914, dated January 8,
1962, the CAB conditioned its approval of ``no-show penalties'' for
confirmed passengers on a requirement that bumped passengers be
compensated. An oversales rule was adopted in 1967 as 14 CFR Part 250
(ER-503, 32 FR 11939, August 18, 1967) and revised substantially in
1978 and 1982 after comprehensive rulemaking proceedings (ER-1050, 43
FR 24277, June 5, 1978 and ER-1306, 47 FR 52980, November 24, 1982,
respectively). The key features of the current requirements are as
follows:
(1) In the event of an oversold flight, the airline must first seek
volunteers who are willing to relinquish their seats in return for
compensation of the airline's choosing.
(2) If there are not enough volunteers, the airline must use non-
discriminatory procedures (`boarding priorities') in deciding who is to
be bumped involuntarily.
(3) Most passengers who are involuntarily bumped are eligible for
denied boarding compensation, with the amount depending on the price of
each passenger's ticket and the length of his or her delay. If the
airline can arrange alternate transportation that is scheduled to
arrive at the passenger's destination within 1 hour of the planned
arrival time of the oversold flight, no compensation is required. If
the alternate transportation is scheduled to arrive between 1 and 2
hours after the planned arrival time of the oversold flight (between 1
and 4 hours on international flights), the compensation equals 100% of
the passenger's one-way fare to his or her next stopover or final
destination, with a $200 maximum. If the airline cannot meet the 2 (or
4) hour deadline, the compensation rate doubles to 200% of the
passenger's one-way fare, with a $400 maximum. This compensation is in
addition to the value of the passenger's ticket, which he or she can
use for alternate transportation or have refunded if not used.

Discussion

On July 10, 2007, the Department published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on several issues
associated with the oversales rule; see 72 FR 37491. We received over
1,280 comments in response to the ANPRM. About 20 of the comments were
from organizations, with the rest from individuals. Most of the
comments from the organizations, including those from air carriers and
organizations representing air carriers, expressed the opinion that the
rule serves a useful purpose and had benefited the industry and the
public. Many of the individual comments did not express an opinion on
the specific issues discussed in the ANPRM but rather urged that
overbooking be banned, described their own negative air travel
experiences, or commented on other issues (e.g., flight delays).
On November 20, 2007, the Department published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (72 FR 65237) in which we proposed several specific changes
to the Oversales rule. We did not propose to ban overbooking as many
individual commenters urged. As indicated in the ``Background'' section
above, air travelers receive some benefit from controlled overbooking.
We are not aware of levels of consumer harm that require such a
sweeping solution at this time, and we believe that the additional
oversale protections that we are adopting here will address the
principal issues related to this regulation that require action by the
Department.
The issues that were presented in the NPRM and a summary of the
comments appear below.

The Maximum Amount of Denied Boarding Compensation

It has been 25 years since the rule was last revised, and the
existing $200 and $400 limits on the amount of required denied boarding
compensation for passengers involuntarily denied boarding have not been
raised since 1978. The Department has received recommendations from
various sources that it reexamine its oversales rule and, in
particular, the maximum amounts of compensation set forth in the rule.
In this regard, in a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000, Public
Law 106-69, the Senate noted its sense that the Department should amend
its denied boarding rule to double the applicable compensation amounts.
Legislation has also been introduced in Congress to require the
Department to review the rule's maximum amounts of compensation. (See
S. 319, reported in the Senate April 26, 2001.) In addition, in his
February 12, 2000, Final Report on Airline Customer Service
Commitments, the Department's Inspector General (IG) recommended, among
other things, that the airlines petition the Department to increase the
amount of denied boarding compensation payable to involuntarily bumped
passengers. In response thereto, and citing the length of time since
the maximum amounts of denied boarding compensation were last revised,
the Air Transport Association (the trade association of the larger U.S.
airlines) filed a petition with the Department on April 3, 2001,
requesting that a rulemaking be instituted to examine those amounts.\1\
(Docket DOT-OST-

[[Page 21028]]

2001-9325.) More recently, the IG on November 20, 2006, issued his
``Report on the Follow-up Review Performed of U.S. Airlines in
Implementing Selected Provisions of the Airline Customer Service
Commitment'' in which he recommended that we determine whether the
maximum denied boarding compensation (DBC) amount needs to be increased
and whether the oversales rule needs to be extended to cover smaller
aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ It is important to note that the maximum involuntary denied
boarding amounts set forth in Part 250 are amounts below which
carriers cannot set their maximum compensation. Airlines have been
and continue to be free, as a competitive tool, to voluntarily set
their maximum compensation levels at amounts greater than that
provided in the Department's rule. With the exception of JetBlue
Airways, whose recently changed policy is described below, we are
not aware of any carrier that has elected to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CAB's decision in 1978 to double the maximum amount of denied
boarding compensation to $400 was based on its determination that the
previous maximum was inadequate to redress the inconvenience to bumped
passengers and that the increase would provide a greater incentive to
carriers to reduce the number of persons involuntarily bumped from
their flights. Following promulgation of the amendment to the rule in
1978 requiring the solicitation of volunteers and doubling the
compensation maximum, the overall industry rate of involuntary denied
boardings per 10,000 enplanements in fact declined for many years.
Until 2007, the rate for the past decade has been slightly below the
level of involuntary bumping reported 10 years ago. In this regard,
55,828 passengers were involuntarily bumped from their flights in 2006
on the 19 largest U.S. airlines (carriers whose denied boarding rate is
tracked in the Department's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report \2\).
Additional passengers were bumped by other airlines, whose denied
boarding rate is not tracked in this report but whose bumped passengers
are subject to the compensation rates in the DOT rule. The annual rate
of involuntary denied boardings per 10,000 enplanements for the
carriers tracked in the report has increased in each of the past three
years and in 2007 was at the highest level in the past ten years.
Involuntary denied boarding rates from the Air Travel Consumer Report
for that period appear below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ This report tracks the denied boarding rate of air carriers
that each account for at least 1% of domestic scheduled-service
passenger revenues for the previous year. Consequently, the list of
carriers whose performance is tracked in this report can change from
year to year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invol. DB's
Year per 10,000
passengers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................................... 1.06
1998.................................................... 0.87
1999.................................................... 0.88
2000.................................................... 1.04
2001.................................................... 0.82
2002.................................................... 0.72
2003.................................................... 0.86
2004.................................................... 0.86
2005.................................................... 0.89
2006.................................................... 1.01
2007.................................................... 1.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likely contributing to this upward trend is the fact that flights
are fuller: from 1978 to 2006 the system-wide load factor (percentage
of seats filled) for U.S. airlines increased from 61.5% to 79.2%, with
most of this increase taking place since 1994. The most-recently
reported monthly load factors have been in the mid-80% range.
With respect to the denied boarding compensation limits, inflation
has eroded the value of the $200 and $400 limits that were established
in 1978. Using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U,
the basis for the inflation adjustor in the Department's domestic
baggage liability rule, 14 CFR 254.6), $400 in 1978 was worth $128 at
the time of the NPRM ($125 today). See the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Inflation Calculator at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm. Stated another
way, in order to have the same purchasing power today as in 1978, $400
would have needed to be $1,248 as of the time of the NPRM ($1,272
today).
At the same time, however, air fares have not risen to the same
extent as the CPI-U. While historical comparisons of air fares are
problematic, one frequently-used index for changes in air fares is
passenger yield. Yield is passenger revenue divided by revenue
passenger miles--the revenue collected by airlines for carrying one
passenger for one mile. According to the Air Transport Association,
system-wide nominal yield (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) for all
reporting U.S. air carriers was 8.29 cents per revenue passenger mile
in 1978 and 12.69 cents per revenue passenger mile in 2006 (latest
available data)--an increase of 53.1% from the 1978 figure.
Applying the CPI-U calculation to the current $200 and $400 DBC
limits that were established in 1978 would have produced updated limits
of $624 and $1,248, respectively, at the time of the NPRM. However, the
NPRM noted that applying the 53.1% increase in passenger yield through
2006 to the current $200 and $400 limits would have produced updated
limits of $306 and $612. It is important to note that the $200 and $400
figures in Part 250 are merely limits on the amount of denied boarding
compensation required under the rule; the compensation rate is 100% or
200% of the passenger's fare (depending on how long he or she was
delayed by the bumping). In the ANPRM, the Department requested comment
on whether the maximums in the rule should be increased so that that a
higher percentage of denied boarding compensation payments are not
``capped'' by the limits.
In the ANPRM the Department sought comment on five options with
respect to the monetary limits on denied boarding compensation--
increasing the limits based on the CPI-U or on the increase in fare
yields, doubling the current limits, eliminating the limits (i.e., so
there would be no cap on denied boarding compensation payments), or
making no change to the current limits. In the NPRM the Department
proposed to amend the oversales rule to double the limits on
involuntary denied boarding compensation from $200 to $400 for
passengers who are rerouted within two hours (four hours
internationally) and from $400 to $800 for passengers who are not
rerouted within these timeframes. As many commenters to the ANPRM
pointed out, there is a significant air-fare component to the denied
boarding compensation formula (100%/200% of the bumped passenger's
fare), and air fares have risen less than the CPI. As indicated above,
system-wide nominal yield (not adjusted for inflation) for all
reporting U.S. air carriers, which is a frequently used index for
changes in air fares, was 8.29 cents per revenue passenger mile in 1978
and 12.69 cents per revenue passenger mile in 2006, an increase of
53.1%. Nonetheless, we did not propose the ``fares/yield'' option from
the ANPRM as the sole method for updating the compensation caps.
Denied boarding compensation is intended in part to compensate for
the passenger's inconvenience, lost time, and lost opportunities. The
value of these considerations is linked to general inflation as well as
to the cost of air fares. Therefore, the arguments of the carrier
organizations about the decline in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) air
fares during that period are somewhat off the mark, because consumers
live with some of the consequences of denied boarding in today's
dollars, not 1978 dollars. As we indicated in the ANPRM, 30 years of
inflation have taken their toll on the value of the existing limits. As
noted above, $400 in 1978 was worth $128 at the time of the NPRM, based
on the change in the CPI-U. Therefore, we proposed to base part of an
increase in the compensation caps on the CPI-U.
By doubling the existing limits we would blend these two
approaches. The limits proposed in the NPRM fall between the higher
figures that would be produced by the CPI option and the

[[Page 21029]]

lower numbers that would result from the ``fares/yield'' option. We
sought comment on this proposal, including any comments and
justifications that were not already provided in response to the ANPRM
about alternative amounts or methodologies.
It is important to note that this proposal concerning limits on
compensation for involuntary denied boardings would not necessarily
require carriers to offer more compensation to the great majority of
passengers affected by overbooking because most such situations are
handled through volunteers who agree to give up their seat in exchange
for mutually-agreed compensation, typically at the departure gate. Nor
would it affect the significant proportion of involuntarily bumped
passengers--possibly the majority--with fares low enough that the
formula for involuntary denied boarding compensation would not exceed
the current limits. Finally, even with respect to involuntarily bumped
passengers whose denied boarding compensation might increase with
higher maximums, many such passengers accept a voucher for future
travel on that airline (often in a face amount greater than the legally
required denied boarding compensation) in lieu of a check. Carriers
make such offers because vouchers do not entail the same cost as cash
compensation given rates of non-use and inventory-management
restrictions.
Comments
Our proposal to double the denied boarding compensation limits was
endorsed by the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), the Airports
Council International--North America (ACI-NA), the Aviation Consumer
Action Project (ACAP), the Coalition for an Airline Passenger Bill of
Rights (CAPBOR), Jet Airways (India), and all of the individuals who
commented on this issue. ACAP also endorsed a minimum DBC amount of
$100. ASTA remarked that the reasoning in the Regulatory Evaluation is
sound and suggested that for lengthy delays (e.g., next day), DBC
should be higher, e.g. perhaps based on the CPI concept. ACI-NA
asserted that incentives against unreasonable overbooking levels must
remain effective because current high load factors make rerouting more
difficult. The National Business Travel Association (NBTA) favored an
increase in DBC limits but believed that the Department's proposal did
not go far enough--the Association noted that business travelers often
pay high fares and book peak flights that it contended are more likely
to be oversold and consequently favored limits of $400/$800 (the NPRM
proposal) or half of that passenger's fare, whichever is higher. The
Air Transport Association stated that it did not oppose the basic
elements of the NPRM but had objections to certain proposals (see
below) that were not related to the adjustment of the compensation
limits.
The proposal to double the limits was opposed by most other
organizations that commented on this issue. (No individual commenters
opposed the proposal, although one felt that the limits should be
removed altogether and several said that overbooking should be banned.)
The Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA) stated that the increased
limits are unfair to smaller carriers that have fewer rerouting options
that would permit them to limit DBC to the 100% rate. ACAA said that
the limits should be increased no more than 25%, although it gave no
basis for this figure. The Regional Airline Association (RAA) said that
involuntary denied boardings are rare and the current system is
working, but if the limits are increased the adjustment should be based
on historical increases in fares/yield rather than $400/$800. The
National Air Carrier Association said that the limits should be
increased only for carriers that consistently bump a high number of
passengers. Delta Air Lines stated that there is no justification for
an increase in the limits, but echoed RAA's contention (as did China
Eastern Airlines) that any increase that does take place should be
based on increases in fares rather than the $400/$800 proposal.
Philippine Airlines wanted an increase of no more than 10%.
Response to Comments
After careful consideration of all of the comments, we have decided
to double the current DBC limits as proposed. The limits have not been
adjusted in nearly 30 years, and the purchasing power of the limits has
eroded. Air fares have increased by more than 50% in that time, and
thus a higher percentage of bumped passengers is undoubtedly having
their DBC capped at a figure lower than the 100% or 200% DBC rate. The
Department has been urged to reexamine the limits by the Senate, the
Department's Inspector General, and the airlines themselves (see ATA's
petition for rulemaking in this proceeding). As ACI-NA noted in its
comments, unrealistic deterrents in the rule could produce more
oversales--and indeed the rate of involuntary denied boardings has
increased 30% in the past three years. Carriers whose schedules make it
difficult to reroute passengers in time to limit DBC to the 100% rate
are nonetheless in control of their overbooking rates and of the
attractiveness of the compensation that they offer to prospective
volunteers. With respect to the comments that urge us to base the
increase in the limits solely on the increase in fares/yields, as noted
above, denied boarding compensation is intended in part to compensate
for the passenger's inconvenience, lost time, and lost opportunities,
and the value of these considerations is linked to general inflation as
well as to the cost of air fares.

The Small-Aircraft Exclusion

The oversales rule originally issued by the CAB did not contain an
exclusion for small aircraft. In 1981 that agency amended Part 250 to
exclude operations with aircraft seating 60 or fewer passengers. The
CAB determined that without this exclusion the denied boarding rule
imposed a proportionately greater financial and operational burden on
these small-aircraft operators than on carriers operating larger
aircraft. In addition, because of the lower revenues generated by these
small aircraft, the financial burden of denied boarding compensation
placed certificated carriers operating aircraft with 60 or fewer seats
at a competitive disadvantage relative to commuter carriers (non-
certificated) operating similar equipment and on similar routes which
were not subject to Part 250. The number of flights that was excluded
by the amendment was small and most such flights were operated by small
carriers that operated small aircraft exclusively. Thus, Part 250
currently applies to certificated U.S. carriers and foreign carriers
holding a permit, or exemption authority, issued by the Department,
only with respect to operations performed with aircraft seating more
than 60 passengers.
The majority of the aircraft operated by the regional airline
industry have 60 or fewer seats and thus are exempt from the denied
boarding rule. However, this sector has experienced tremendous growth.
According to the Regional Airline Association \3\, passenger
enplanements on regional carriers have increased more than 100% since
1995, and regional airlines now carry one out of every five domestic
air travelers in the United States. RAA states that revenue passenger
miles on regional carriers have increased 40-fold since 1978 and
increased 17 percent from 2004 to 2005 alone. As noted in the NPRM,
regional jets have fueled much

[[Page 21030]]

of the recent growth. According to RAA, from 1989 to 2004 the number of
turbofan aircraft (regional jets) in the regional-airline fleet
increased from 54 to 1,628 and regional jets now make up 59% of the
regional-carrier fleet. Although many regional jets have more than 60
passenger seats and thus are subject to Part 250, the ubiquitous 50-
seat and smaller regional jet models have driven much of the growth of
the regional-carrier sector. Moreover, most regional jets are operated
by regional carriers affiliated with a major carrier via a code-share
agreement, a fee-for-service arrangement, and/or an equity stake in the
regional carrier. RAA asserts that 99% of regional airline passengers
traveled on code-sharing regional airlines in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See http://www.raa.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT statistics also demonstrate the growth in traffic on flights
operated by aircraft with 31 through 60 seats. From the fourth quarter
(4Q) of 2002 (earliest available consistent data) to 4Q2006, the number
of flights using aircraft with 31 through 60 seats increased by 13.5%
while the number of flights using aircraft with more than 60 seats rose
only 3.4%. The number of passengers carried on flights using aircraft
with 31 through 60 seats increased by 34.9% from 4Q 2002 through 4Q
2006, while the number of passengers carried on flights using aircraft
with more than 60 seats rose by only 12.1% during that period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ DOT Form 41, schedule T-100.
----------------------------

BIL PE TUBES

Cabin Decompression and subsequent lawsuit against SWA.

Air Traffic Control Modernization

OAG Report.

Now Imagine that both of these people are armed. . .

US Airways Pilots replace their union. Further, imagine that both of them used to be Captains with previously competing carriers and are presently pretending to be one, big, happy family. Recall the guy whose gun went off "accidentally" on approach? Multiply that by about 2K.

Top 100 Pipelines

As in Jet Fuel?

16 April 2008



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

[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20700-20701]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Transportation Security Administration


Intent To Request Approval From OMB of One New Public Collection
of Information: Critical Facility Information of the Top 100 Most
Critical Pipelines

AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites
public comment on a new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted
below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. This collection provides TSA critical facility and annual
product through-put information from owners or operators of the
nation's largest pipelines, and is necessitated by the requirements set
forth in the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007.

DATES: Send your comments by June 16, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed or delivered to Joanna Johnson,
Communications Branch, Business Management Office, Operational Process
and Technology, TSA-32, Transportation Security Administration, 601
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Johnson at the above address,
or by telephone (571) 227-3651 or facsimile (703) 603-0822.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available
at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and
approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting
comments to--
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.

Information Collection Requirement

Purpose of Data Collection

Section 1557(b) of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007, specifically tasks TSA to develop and implement
a plan for inspecting certain critical facilities of the 100 most
critical pipeline systems. See Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 at 475
(Aug. 3, 2007). The predominant criterion used to determine the nations
top 100 pipeline systems in terms of criticality is the quantity of
hazardous liquid or natural gas product that is transported through a
pipeline in one year (annual through-put). Using annual through-put
data from Federal and commercially available data as a preliminary
determinant, TSA has selected the nation's top 125 pipeline systems
from which annual through-put and critical facility information will be
requested. TSA is requesting annual product through-put information
from these top 125 pipeline systems in order to ensure that selection
of the top 100 pipeline systems for inspection reflects the most recent
throughput data and is as complete and accurate as possible.

Description of Data Collection

TSA is requesting information from the owners/operators of 125
systems. Within each of the system owner/operator companies, both the
annual through-put and critical facility information has already been
determined and is readily available to employees within the respective
companies. System through-put is a figure already determined and
frequently used by pipeline companies for various business, financial,
and operations performance purposes. Per guidance set forth in the
``Pipeline Security Circular September 4, 2002'' (2002 Guidelines)
issued by the U.S.

[[Page 20701]]

Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration (PHMSA), formerly the Office of Pipeline Safety,
pipeline companies had to determine critical facilities in accordance
with guidance provided in that circular by December 31, 2003.
Therefore, very little additional burden will be incurred by the
pipeline companies in determining or producing this information.
Consequently, the burden to pipeline owners/operators from to which
information is requested lies only in compiling, reviewing, and
transmitting the currently existing information to TSA. The time
estimate breakdown is as follows: TSA will request the information from
the nation's top 125 pipeline systems. TSA estimates that system owners
and operators would spend a maximum of four hours per system to
collect, review, and submit the information via email to TSA. Thus, TSA
estimates the total annual burden to the public would be (125 owners or
operators) x (4 hours per owner or operator) = 500 total hours per
year.

Use and Handling of Results

TSA will use annual product through-put values as a significant
factor in determining the most critical systems. The lists of a
system's critical facilities and amplifying information are determined
by the individual pipeline system owners or operators for their
respective systems through their own site assessment process, and will
be used by TSA to develop a plan for TSA to inspect the top 100 sites
as required in section in 1557(b) of the Implementing Recommendation
for the 911 Commission Act of 2007.
Both the request for information sent by TSA and the responses from
subject pipeline system owners or operators will be conducted via
electronic mail. To the extent that the information provided by owners
or operators is Sensitive Security Information (SSI), it will be
protected in accordance with procedures meeting the transmission,
handling and storage requirements of SSI set forth in 49 CFR parts 15
and 1520.

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on April 9, 2008.
Fran Lozito,
Director, Business Management Office, Operational Process and
Technology.
[FR Doc. E8-8096 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-05-P

Penalizing those who serve

American settles with DOJ over treatment of military pilots in their employ.

Database

Create your own statistics.

Fight Gridlock Now

Laughable.

The Real ID Act

Implementation Issues from the Congressional Research Service.

transportation security

Government Report.

Enhanced Security, Group of Eight

Hokkaido.

Litium Battery Fires

In Cargo.

DOT Air Consumer Feedback

Link to complaint form for safety/security issues in airline travel.

DOT raises bumped limit

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Transportation Department is doubling the available compensation for passengers who get bumped off overbooked flights.
Travelers forced onto another flight that takes them to their destination
more than two hours after their original arrival time will be eligible to
receive the full price of their fare, up to $800. The new rule applies to most planes carrying more than 30 passengers and is likely to go into effect next month. The previous $400 limit had not been raised since 1978.

Air Consumer Customer Service Plans (by Carrier).

Model Contingency Plans To Deal with air passgr.delays

[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 20083-20084]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-101]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0108]


National Task Force To Develop Model Contingency Plans To Deal
With Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Task Force to
Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board
Ground Delays.

DATES: The Task Force meeting is scheduled for April 29, 2008, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The Task Force meeting will be held at the U.S. Department
of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West
Building.

For Further Information or to Contact the Department Concerning the
Task Force: Livaughn Chapman, Jr., or Kathleen Blank-Riether, Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., W-96-429, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone: (202) 366-9342;
Fax: (202) 366-7152; E-mail: Livaughn.Chapman@dot.gov, or
Kathleen.Blankriether@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, and the General Services
Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory
committees, 41 CFR Part 102-3, this notice announces a meeting of the
National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with
Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The Meeting will be held on
April 29, 2008, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of
Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West
Building.
DOT's Office of Inspector General recommended, in its audit report,
entitled ``Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,''
issued on September 25, 2007, that the Secretary of Transportation
establish a national task force of airlines, airports, and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to coordinate and develop contingency
plans to deal with lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and
airports to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency.
To effectuate this recommendation, on January 3, 2008, the Department,
consistent with the requirements of the FACA, established the National
Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy
Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The first meeting of the Task Force
took place on February 26, 2008.
The agenda topics for the April 29, 2008, meeting will include the
following: (1) A presentation by FAA's Air Traffic Control on its
perspective on air traffic holds and ground delays and uncertainties in
the system; (2) a presentation on the regional airline perspective of
tarmac delays; (3) one or more presentations on recent tarmac delay
events and efforts to avoid them; (4) a briefing by the Passenger Needs
Working Group, the working group that studied the common needs of
significantly delayed passengers on aircraft and passengers who
returned to the terminal after disembarking from such aircraft; (5) a
briefing by the Delays Causes Working Group, the working group that
examined the possible causes of lengthy tarmac delays; and (6) a
discussion of whether additional working groups should be established
to achieve the objectives of the Task Force and if so, what the purpose
of these working groups should be.
Attendance is open to the public, and time will be provided for
comments by members of the public. Since access to the U.S. DOT
headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, any member
of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the
Department contact noted above ten (10) calendar days prior to the
meeting. Attendance will be necessarily limited by the size of the
meeting room.
Members of the public may present written comments at any time and,
at the discretion of the Chairman and time permitting, oral comments at
the meeting. Any oral comments permitted must be limited to agenda
items and will be limited to five (5) minutes per person. Members of
the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the Department
contact noted above via email that they wish to attend and present oral
comments at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the meeting. For this
April 29, 2008, meeting, no more than one hour will be set aside for
oral comments. Although written material may be filed in the docket at
any time, comments regarding upcoming meeting topics should be sent to
the Task Force docket (10) calendar days prior to the meeting. Members
of the public may also contact the Department contact noted above to be
placed on the Task Force mailing list.
Persons with a disability requiring special accommodations, such as
an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact the Department
contact noted above at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the
meeting.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the FACA and
the General Service Administration regulations covering management of
Federal advisory committees.


[[Page 20084]]


Issued on: April 7, 2008.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E8-7620 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

757 wing anti-ice

[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19993-19995]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0339; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-182-AD;
Amendment 39-15464; AD 2008-08-12]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of
the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing thermal
anti-ice (TAI) system for cracks at certain outboard stations of the
left and right wings, and corrective action if necessary. This AD also
provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
This AD results from reports of cracks found at the anchor tab of the
bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing TAI system. In one incident, the
anchor tab and bulkhead seal assembly had separated because of the
cracks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the anchor tab of
the bulkhead seal assembly, which in icing conditions could result in
insufficient airflow to the wing TAI system, subsequent ice on the
wings, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective May 19, 2008.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this 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 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: Barbara Mudrovich, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6477; fax (425) 917-6590.

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
all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71275). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal
assemblies of the wing thermal anti-ice (TAI) system for cracks at
certain outboard stations of the left and right wings, and corrective
action if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to provide for optional

[[Page 19994]]

terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

Boeing concurs with the contents of the NPRM.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

Northwest Airlines (NWA) asks that the repetitive inspection
intervals specified in the NPRM be changed from 6,000 flight hours to
24 months. NWA states that because the NPRM already allows up to 36
months after the airplane has accumulated 20,000 total flight hours to
accomplish the initial check, an acceptable level of safety would be
maintained if repetitive intervals coincide with operator-scheduled
heavy check intervals not to exceed 24 months. NWA adds that if
repetitive inspections are at the proposed 6,000-flight-hour intervals,
the inspections would need to be accomplished in a line environment.
NWA asks that we allow the repetitive inspections to be done during
heavy maintenance checks where specialized personnel are available in a
controlled environment more conducive to performing the work.
We do not agree to extend the compliance time for the repetitive
inspections. Based on data from the manufacturer, we find that a 6,000-
flight-hour interval is appropriate. We do not currently have data or
analysis, nor did NWA provide any, that can support such an extension
of the compliance time. We have determined that the 6,000-flight-hour
compliance time is appropriate given the probability of crack
initiation, crack growth characteristics, and the ability of operators
to integrate the required actions into established maintenance
practices. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (i) of
this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the
request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD
in this regard.

Request To Increase Work Hour Estimate

NWA also states that the work-hour estimate specified in the Costs
of Compliance section of the NPRM is underestimated. NWA states that
the 2-hour estimate for the inspections is well below the estimate
provided by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-30-0021 and
757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated June 13, 2007, as referenced
in the NPRM. NWA adds that an accurate estimate for accomplishing the
inspections is 8 work hours (2 work hours per support) when access is
provided at a heavy maintenance check.
From this comment, we infer that NWA would like us to increase the
work-hour estimate given in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost
information below describes only the direct costs of the specific
actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the
manufacturer provided the number of work hours (2) necessary to do the
required inspections, as specified in the service bulletins. This
number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions
actually 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. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions,
however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time
required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or
time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental
costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost
impossible to calculate. We have made no change to the AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

There are about 929 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 530 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The inspection takes about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated
cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $84,800, or $160 per airplane, 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

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

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:

2008-08-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-15464. Docket No. FAA-2007-0339;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-182-AD.

Effective Date

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 19, 2008.

Affected ADs

(b) None.

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

[[Page 19995]]

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD results from reports of cracks found at the anchor
tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing thermal anti-ice
(TAI) system. In one incident, the anchor tab and bulkhead seal
assembly had separated because of the cracks. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assembly,
which in icing conditions could result in insufficient airflow to
the wing TAI system, subsequent ice on the wings, and consequent
reduced controllability 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.

Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Action

(f) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-
0021 or 757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated June 13, 2007, as
applicable; except where the service bulletins specify starting the
compliance time `` * * * from the date on this service bulletin,''
this AD requires starting the compliance time from the effective
date of this AD: Perform detailed inspections for cracks of the
anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing TAI system at
certain outboard stations of the left and right wings by doing all
the actions, including all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service bulletin. Do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight.

Optional Terminating Action

(g) Installing a new duct anchor support bracket adjacent to the
bulkhead seal assemblies in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-30-0021 or 757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated
June 13, 2007, as applicable, ends the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (f) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issue of Service
Information

(h) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-30-
0021 and 757-30-0022, both dated August 15, 2006, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified
in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 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

(j) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-
30-0021, Revision 1, dated June 13, 2007; or Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0022, Revision 1, dated June 13,
2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
(3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 3, 2008.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-7662 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P