Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, 28797-28800 [05-9875]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(h) 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.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(i) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin
747–25A3187, Revision 2, dated January 27,
2000; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
25A3287, Revision 2, dated September 4,
2003; as applicable; to perform the actions
that are required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise. The Director of the
Federal Register approves the incorporation
by reference of these documents in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. To get copies of the service
information, go to Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207. To view the AD
docket, go to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401, Nassif
Building, Washington, DC. To review copies
of the service information, go to the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741–
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9,
2005.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9874 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003–NM–214–AD; Amendment
39–14094; AD 2005–10–17]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 777–200 and –300 Series
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a
new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Boeing Model 777–
200 and –300 series airplanes, that
requires modification of the bolt holes
of the lower side of the body splice tchord common to the paddle fittings of
the lower wing panel. The modification
includes performing a high frequency
eddy current inspection of the fastener
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:30 May 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
holes for cracks, repairing the hole if
necessary, and replacing the fasteners
with new inconel bolts. This action is
necessary to prevent fatigue cracks in
the lower t-chord at the bolt holes
common to the paddle fittings that
could result in fractures of one or more
of the t-chord segments, which could
lead to detachment of the lower wing
panel and consequent loss of the wing.
This action is intended to address the
identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective June 23, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a
certain publication listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of June 23,
2005.
ADDRESSES: The service information
referenced in this AD may be obtained
from Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124–2207. This information may be
examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Oltman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6443;
fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to
include an airworthiness directive (AD)
that is applicable to certain Boeing
Model 777–200 and –300 series
airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on June 16, 2004 (69 FR 33595).
That action proposed to require
modification of the bolt holes of the
lower side of the body splice t-chord
common to the paddle fitting of the
lower wing panel. The modification
includes performing a high frequency
eddy current inspection of the fastener
hole for cracks, repairing the hole if
necessary, and replacing the fasteners
with new inconel bolts.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded
an opportunity to participate in the
making of this amendment. Due
consideration has been given to the
comments received.
Agreement With Proposed Modification
Two commenters generally agree with
the proposal to mandate the
modification specified in the proposed
AD instead of allowing an option to
accomplish repetitive inspections. One
commenter notes that the work hours
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28797
needed to do the modification are
comparable to the work hours needed to
do the inspection.
Request To Revise Compliance Times
Based on ‘‘Sliding Scale’’ Equation
One commenter, the manufacturer,
requests that the compliance times
specified in paragraph (a) of the
proposed AD be revised to be based on
a ‘‘sliding scale’’ equation. The
commenter states that the ‘‘sliding
scale’’ equation determines compliance
times based on an evaluation of the total
flight cycles associated with the total
flight hours. The commenter notes that
the compliance times specified in
paragraph (a) of the proposed AD were
found to be adversely affecting operators
who use airplanes on long missions.
The commenter states that some
airplanes are reaching the 60,000 total
flight-hour threshold before reaching
8,000 total flight cycles. The commenter
further contends that the cracks
addressed in the proposed AD are
largely a function of flight cycles, not
flight hours, and that, for these
airplanes, the proposed AD would
mandate the modification before it is
necessary.
We agree with the commenter to
revise the compliance times specified in
paragraph (a) of the final rule. However,
we do not agree with the compliance
time based on a ‘‘sliding scale’’ equation
proposed by the commenter. That
proposed compliance time would
expand the compliance envelope for
airplanes utilized on long missions but
would reduce the compliance time for
airplanes near the 20,000 flight-cycle
and 60,000 flight-hour compliance
envelope.
We held an ex-parte meeting with the
commenter to discuss its proposed
compliance time. The commenter
presented data in support of a new
‘‘sliding scale’’ equation for the
compliance time that differed from the
equation proposed in the manufacturer’s
comment. The new proposed
compliance time simply expanded the
compliance time specified in the
proposed AD. The new data were
accepted and subsequently incorporated
into Boeing Service Bulletin 777–
57A0040, Revision 2, dated February 24,
2005. Boeing Service Bulletin 777–
57A0040, Revision 1, dated July 10,
2003, was referenced as the appropriate
source of service information for
accomplishing the proposed actions.
Revision 2 of the service bulletin
contains the same actions for doing the
modification as Revision 1 of the service
bulletin.
We have revised paragraph (a) of the
final rule to reference Revision 2 of the
E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM
19MYR1
28798
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
service bulletin as the appropriate
source of service information for doing
the actions, and we have revised
paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule to
specify the compliance times in the
service bulletin. The service bulletin
specifies the actions be done within
approximately 20,000 total flight cycles,
or 80,000 total flight hours, as shown in
Figure 1 of the service bulletin.
We have also revised the applicability
of the final rule to reference Revision 2
of the service bulletin. In addition, we
added new paragraph (c) of the final
rule to allow credit for actions done in
accordance with Revision 1 of the
service bulletin.
Request To Increase the Flight Hour
Compliance Time
Several commenters request that the
flight-hour compliance time specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed AD be
increased from 60,000 total flight hours
to 65,000 total flight hours.
One commenter notes that, when its
airplanes reach the 60,000 total flighthour threshold, the airplanes will have
only 12,000 total flight cycles, which is
well below the 20,000 total flight-cycle
threshold. The commenter states that
increasing the flight-hour compliance
time will allow accomplishing the
modification at 65,000 total flight hours,
which leaves approximately 7,000 flight
cycles remaining before reaching the
20,000 total flight cycle threshold. The
commenter also points out that it
concurs with Boeing that the premature
accomplishment of the modification
would decrease the fatigue life of the
affected area. The commenter notes that
an airplane’s productive life may be
decreased if there is premature
accomplishment of the modification
because fatigue cracks may occur earlier
than on airplanes that do not
accomplish the modification
prematurely. The commenter contends
that increasing the flight-hour threshold
will prevent premature accomplishment
of the modification for airplanes having
a low number of flight cycles.
One other commenter states that the
issue addressed by the proposed AD is
a fatigue concern and therefore the flight
cycle compliance time is more relevant
than the flight-hour compliance time.
The commenter notes that Boeing is in
agreement with the request to increase
the compliance time to 65,000 flight
hours. The commenter states that
increasing the compliance time will
allow it to accomplish the modification
during heavy maintenance visits instead
of light maintenance visits.
Another commenter states that further
studies may show justification for
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:30 May 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
greater increases in the compliance
times.
We do not agree with the commenters’
request to increase the flight-hour
compliance time specified in paragraph
(a)(1) of the final rule to 65,000 flight
hours. The commenters did not provide
data to substantiate that the change in
compliance time would provide an
acceptable level of safety. In addition,
the manufacturer determined after
further analysis that premature
accomplishment of the modification is
not an issue. However, as stated
previously in the ‘‘Request to Revise
Compliance Times Based on ‘‘Sliding
Scale’’ Equation’’ paragraph, we have
revised the compliance time specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule to refer
to the compliance time specified in
Revision 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin
777–57A0040. The revised compliance
time extends the compliance time
threshold for certain airplanes.
In developing an appropriate
compliance time for this action, we
considered the urgency associated with
the subject unsafe condition, the
compliance times recommended by the
manufacturer, and the practical aspect
of accomplishing the required
modification within a period of time
that corresponds to the normal
scheduled maintenance for most
affected operators. In addition,
according to the provisions of paragraph
(d) of the final rule, we may approve
requests to adjust the compliance time
if the request includes data that
substantiate that the new compliance
time would provide an acceptable level
of safety. No change is made to this final
rule in this regard.
Request To Increase Flight Hour and
Flight Cycle Compliance Time
One commenter requests that the
compliance times specified in paragraph
(a)(1) of the proposed AD be revised to
‘‘70,000 [total] flight hours or 10,000
[total] flight cycles, whichever comes
first.’’ The commenters state that this
new compliance time would lessen the
impact on operators that use high flight
hour airplanes.
We partially agree with the request to
revise the compliance times in
paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule. The
commenter did not provide data to
substantiate that reducing the flight
cycle threshold and increasing the flight
hour threshold would provide an
acceptable level of safety, and therefore,
we have not revised the final rule in this
regard. However, as stated previously in
the ‘‘Request to Revise Compliance
Times Based on ‘‘Sliding Scale’’
Equation’’ paragraph, we have revised
the compliance time specified in
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule to refer
to the compliance time specified in
Revision 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin
777–57A0040. Airplanes having 70,000
total flight hours and 10,000 total flight
cycles would be compliant within the
compliance time specified in Revision
2.
Request To Add Reference About the
Early Accomplishment of the
Modification
One commenter states it is concerned
that the proposed AD does not include
reference to flag note 2 of Figure 1 of
Boeing Service Bulletin 777–57A0040,
Revision 1, dated July 10, 2003, which
states that ‘‘the full benefit of the
modification will not be realized if the
modification is accomplished too early
in the airplane life.’’ The commenter
notes that, if the modification is done
early and then cracks are discovered
later, there may be future regulatory
action. The commenter contends this
would create an unnecessary burden to
operators that accomplish the actions in
the proposed AD.
We infer from the commenter’s
statement that it requests that a
reference be added to the final rule
regarding the early accomplishment of
the modification as specified in
Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
However, as stated previously in the
‘‘Request to Revise Compliance Times
Based on ‘‘Sliding Scale’’ Equation’’
paragraph, Revision 2 of the service
bulletin is referenced as the appropriate
source of service information for
accomplishing the required actions in
the final rule. Revision 2 of the service
bulletin does not include flag note 2 of
Figure 1 from Revision 1 of the service
bulletin. After the manufacturer did
further analysis, the manufacturer
determined that the note is not
necessary. We have not revised the final
rule in this regard.
Request To Revise the Cost Impact
One commenter states that actions
specified in the proposed AD will take
200 work hours and that the materials
will cost $24,000, for a total cost of
$464,266 per airplane.
We infer from the commenter’s
statement that it requests that the
estimate be revised in the Cost Impact
section of the final rule. We partially
agree with the commenter to revise the
Cost Impact section of the final rule. We
have revised the work hour estimate in
the final rule from approximately 34
work hours per airplane to 68 work
hours per airplane. We do not agree to
revise the work hour estimate to the
commenter’s work hour estimate of 200
work hours per airplane. The work hour
E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM
19MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
estimate in the final rule represents only
the time necessary to perform the
specific actions actually required by the
final rule. The work hour estimate
typically does not include incidental
costs, such as the time required to gain
access and close up, planning time, or
time necessitated by other
administrative actions. The
commenter’s estimate of $24,000 for
materials is within the range specified
in the Cost Impact section of the final
rule, which specifies parts cost between
approximately $21,686 and $24,803. We
have not made a change to the parts cost
estimate in the final rule in this regard.
Changes to Delegation Authority
Boeing has received a Delegation
Option Authorization (DOA). We have
revised this final rule to delegate the
authority to approve an alternative
method of compliance for any repair
required by this AD (if specifically
authorized) to the Authorized
Representative for the Boeing DOA
Organization rather than the Designated
Engineering Representative (DER).
Conclusion
After careful review of the available
data, including the comments noted
above, we have determined that air
safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule with the changes
previously described. These changes
will neither increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the
scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 262
airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that
73 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this final rule, that it would
take approximately 68 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the required
modification, and that the average labor
rate is $65 per work hour. Required
parts will cost between approximately
$21,686 and $24,803 per airplane. Based
on these figures, the cost impact of the
final rule on U.S. operators is estimated
to be between $1,905,738 and $2,133,
279, or between $26,106 and $29,223
per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed
above is based on assumptions that no
operator has yet accomplished any of
the requirements of this AD action, and
that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD
were not adopted. The cost impact
figures discussed in AD rulemaking
actions represent only the time
necessary to perform the specific actions
actually required by the AD. These
figures typically do not include
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:30 May 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
incidental costs, such as the time
required to gain access and close up,
planning time, or time necessitated by
other administrative actions.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
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.
This rulemaking is promulgated
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
AD.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not
have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has
been prepared for this action and it is
contained in the Rules Docket. A copy
of it may be obtained from the Rules
Docket at the location provided under
the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration
I
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28799
amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive:
I
2005–10–17 Boeing: Amendment 39–14094.
Docket 2003–NM–214–AD.
Applicability: Model 777–200 and –300
series airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777–
57A0040, Revision 2, dated February 24,
2005.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless
accomplished previously.
To prevent fatigue cracks in the lower tchord at the bolt holes common to the paddle
fittings that could result in fractures of one
or more of the t-chord segments, which could
lead to detachment of the lower wing panel
and consequent loss of the wing, accomplish
the following:
Modification of the Lower Paddle Fitting
Bolt Holes/Fastener Replacement
(a) At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD,
modify the bolt holes of the lower side of the
body splice t-chord common to the paddle
fittings of the lower wing panel (includes
performing a high frequency eddy current
inspection of the fastener hole for cracks,
repairing the hole if necessary, and replacing
the fasteners with new inconel bolts) by
accomplishing all of the actions specified in
‘‘Part 2—Preventative Modification’’ of the
Work Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
777–57A0040, Revision 2, dated February 24,
2005, except as provided by paragraph (b) of
this AD. Any applicable repair must be
accomplished before further flight.
(1) At the time specified in Figure 1 of the
service bulletin. Where the service bulletin
refers to compliance times as flight hours and
flight cycles, this AD refers to the compliance
times as total flight hours and total flight
cycles.
(2) Within 1,500 days or 8,000 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
is first.
(b) If any crack is found during the
modification required by paragraph (a) of this
AD, and the service bulletin specifies to
contact Boeing for additional instructions:
Before further flight, repair per a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or according
to data meeting the certification basis of the
airplane approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing 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.
E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM
19MYR1
28800
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Actions Accomplished According to
Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(c) Actions accomplished before the
effective date of this AD according to Boeing
Service Bulletin 777–57A0040, Revision 1,
dated July 10, 2003, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding action specified in this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the
Manager, Seattle ACO, is authorized to
approve alternative methods of compliance
for this AD.
Incorporation by Reference
(e) Unless otherwise specified in this AD,
the actions shall be done in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 777–57A0040,
Revision 2, dated February 24, 2005. This
incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. To get copies of the service
information, go to Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207. Copies may be
inspected 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: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Effective Date
(f) This amendment becomes effective on
June 23, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9,
2005.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9875 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2004–19796; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NM–61–AD; Amendment 39–
14095; AD 2005–10–18]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 747–100, –100B, –100B SUD,
–200B, –200C, –300, –400, and –400D
Series Airplanes; and Model 747SR
Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an
existing airworthiness directive (AD),
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:30 May 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
which applies to certain Boeing Model
747 series airplanes. That AD currently
requires a one-time inspection to
determine the material type of the stop
support fittings of the main entry doors
(MEDs). That AD also currently requires
repetitive detailed inspections to detect
cracks of certain stop support fittings of
the MEDs, and replacement of any
cracked stop support fitting with a
certain new stop support fitting. This
new AD adds new inspections, and
replacement if necessary, of the stop
support fittings of MED 3, and adds
airplanes to the applicability. This AD
is prompted by reports of MED 3 having
certain stop support fittings that are
susceptible to stress corrosion cracking.
We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct stress corrosion cracking of the
stop support fittings of the MEDs, which
could result in damage to the adjacent
forward edge frame of the door and
consequent loss of a MED and rapid
decompression of the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective June
23, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2358,
Revision 1, dated April 19, 2001; and
Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747–53–2485, dated January 8,
2004; as listed in the AD, is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register
as of June 23, 2005.
On January 25, 1999 (63 FR 70316,
December 21, 1998), the Director of the
Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747–53–2358, dated
August 26, 1993.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.
Docket: The AD docket contains the
proposed AD, comments, and any final
disposition. You can examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket
Management Facility office between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Management Facility office
(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building at
the U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401,
Washington, DC. This docket number is
FAA–2004–19796; the directorate
identifier for this docket is 2004–NM–
61–AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan
Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6437;
fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
proposed to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
Part 39) with an AD to supersede AD
98–26–13, amendment 39–10954 (63 FR
70316, December 21, 1998). The existing
AD applies to certain Boeing Model 747
series airplanes. The proposed AD was
published in the Federal Register on
December 3, 2004 (69 FR 70204), to
continue to require a one-time
inspection to determine the material
type of the stop support fittings of the
main entry doors (MEDs), repetitive
detailed inspections to detect cracks of
certain stop support fittings of the
MEDs, and replacement of any cracked
stop support fitting with a certain new
stop support fitting. The proposed AD
also adds new inspections, and
replacement if necessary, of the stop
support fittings of MED 3, and adds
airplanes to the applicability.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments that have
been submitted on the proposed AD.
Concur With the Proposed AD
One commenter concurs with the
proposed AD and has no additional
comments.
Request To Add Provision to State
Operators Are Not in Violation of
Proposed AD
One commenter requests that a
provision be added to the proposed AD
to state that operators ‘‘are not in
violation of paragraphs (f) and (g)’’ of
the proposed AD if it is determined that
some of the fittings replaced in
accordance with paragraphs (f) and (g)
were made of the incorrect material. The
commenter states that paragraphs (f) and
(g) of the proposed AD specify that
fittings be replaced with fittings made of
the correct material. The commenter
also states that paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD specifies that replaced
fittings be inspected to determine if the
fittings are made of the correct material.
Therefore, if an operator accomplishes
the inspection specified in paragraph (h)
of the proposed AD and finds fittings
made of the incorrect material, then the
operator would be in violation of the
paragraphs (f) and (g) of the proposed
AD.
We agree that an operator is not in
violation of paragraphs (f), (g), and (l) of
the final rule if fittings were replaced in
good faith with fittings supplied by
Boeing that are determined to be made
E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM
19MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 96 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28797-28800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9875]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003-NM-214-AD; Amendment 39-14094; AD 2005-10-17]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes,
that requires modification of the bolt holes of the lower side of the
body splice t-chord common to the paddle fittings of the lower wing
panel. The modification includes performing a high frequency eddy
current inspection of the fastener holes for cracks, repairing the hole
if necessary, and replacing the fasteners with new inconel bolts. This
action is necessary to prevent fatigue cracks in the lower t-chord at
the bolt holes common to the paddle fittings that could result in
fractures of one or more of the t-chord segments, which could lead to
detachment of the lower wing panel and consequent loss of the wing.
This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective June 23, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Oltman, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
917-6443; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -
300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 16,
2004 (69 FR 33595). That action proposed to require modification of the
bolt holes of the lower side of the body splice t-chord common to the
paddle fitting of the lower wing panel. The modification includes
performing a high frequency eddy current inspection of the fastener
hole for cracks, repairing the hole if necessary, and replacing the
fasteners with new inconel bolts.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Agreement With Proposed Modification
Two commenters generally agree with the proposal to mandate the
modification specified in the proposed AD instead of allowing an option
to accomplish repetitive inspections. One commenter notes that the work
hours needed to do the modification are comparable to the work hours
needed to do the inspection.
Request To Revise Compliance Times Based on ``Sliding Scale'' Equation
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the compliance times
specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD be revised to be based on
a ``sliding scale'' equation. The commenter states that the ``sliding
scale'' equation determines compliance times based on an evaluation of
the total flight cycles associated with the total flight hours. The
commenter notes that the compliance times specified in paragraph (a) of
the proposed AD were found to be adversely affecting operators who use
airplanes on long missions. The commenter states that some airplanes
are reaching the 60,000 total flight-hour threshold before reaching
8,000 total flight cycles. The commenter further contends that the
cracks addressed in the proposed AD are largely a function of flight
cycles, not flight hours, and that, for these airplanes, the proposed
AD would mandate the modification before it is necessary.
We agree with the commenter to revise the compliance times
specified in paragraph (a) of the final rule. However, we do not agree
with the compliance time based on a ``sliding scale'' equation proposed
by the commenter. That proposed compliance time would expand the
compliance envelope for airplanes utilized on long missions but would
reduce the compliance time for airplanes near the 20,000 flight-cycle
and 60,000 flight-hour compliance envelope.
We held an ex-parte meeting with the commenter to discuss its
proposed compliance time. The commenter presented data in support of a
new ``sliding scale'' equation for the compliance time that differed
from the equation proposed in the manufacturer's comment. The new
proposed compliance time simply expanded the compliance time specified
in the proposed AD. The new data were accepted and subsequently
incorporated into Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0040, Revision 2,
dated February 24, 2005. Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0040, Revision
1, dated July 10, 2003, was referenced as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision 2
of the service bulletin contains the same actions for doing the
modification as Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
We have revised paragraph (a) of the final rule to reference
Revision 2 of the
[[Page 28798]]
service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for
doing the actions, and we have revised paragraph (a)(1) of the final
rule to specify the compliance times in the service bulletin. The
service bulletin specifies the actions be done within approximately
20,000 total flight cycles, or 80,000 total flight hours, as shown in
Figure 1 of the service bulletin.
We have also revised the applicability of the final rule to
reference Revision 2 of the service bulletin. In addition, we added new
paragraph (c) of the final rule to allow credit for actions done in
accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
Request To Increase the Flight Hour Compliance Time
Several commenters request that the flight-hour compliance time
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed AD be increased from
60,000 total flight hours to 65,000 total flight hours.
One commenter notes that, when its airplanes reach the 60,000 total
flight-hour threshold, the airplanes will have only 12,000 total flight
cycles, which is well below the 20,000 total flight-cycle threshold.
The commenter states that increasing the flight-hour compliance time
will allow accomplishing the modification at 65,000 total flight hours,
which leaves approximately 7,000 flight cycles remaining before
reaching the 20,000 total flight cycle threshold. The commenter also
points out that it concurs with Boeing that the premature
accomplishment of the modification would decrease the fatigue life of
the affected area. The commenter notes that an airplane's productive
life may be decreased if there is premature accomplishment of the
modification because fatigue cracks may occur earlier than on airplanes
that do not accomplish the modification prematurely. The commenter
contends that increasing the flight-hour threshold will prevent
premature accomplishment of the modification for airplanes having a low
number of flight cycles.
One other commenter states that the issue addressed by the proposed
AD is a fatigue concern and therefore the flight cycle compliance time
is more relevant than the flight-hour compliance time. The commenter
notes that Boeing is in agreement with the request to increase the
compliance time to 65,000 flight hours. The commenter states that
increasing the compliance time will allow it to accomplish the
modification during heavy maintenance visits instead of light
maintenance visits.
Another commenter states that further studies may show
justification for greater increases in the compliance times.
We do not agree with the commenters' request to increase the
flight-hour compliance time specified in paragraph (a)(1) of the final
rule to 65,000 flight hours. The commenters did not provide data to
substantiate that the change in compliance time would provide an
acceptable level of safety. In addition, the manufacturer determined
after further analysis that premature accomplishment of the
modification is not an issue. However, as stated previously in the
``Request to Revise Compliance Times Based on ``Sliding Scale''
Equation'' paragraph, we have revised the compliance time specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule to refer to the compliance time
specified in Revision 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0040. The
revised compliance time extends the compliance time threshold for
certain airplanes.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we
considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition,
the compliance times recommended by the manufacturer, and the practical
aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a period of
time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most
affected operators. In addition, according to the provisions of
paragraph (d) of the final rule, we may approve requests to adjust the
compliance time if the request includes data that substantiate that the
new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. No
change is made to this final rule in this regard.
Request To Increase Flight Hour and Flight Cycle Compliance Time
One commenter requests that the compliance times specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed AD be revised to ``70,000 [total]
flight hours or 10,000 [total] flight cycles, whichever comes first.''
The commenters state that this new compliance time would lessen the
impact on operators that use high flight hour airplanes.
We partially agree with the request to revise the compliance times
in paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule. The commenter did not provide
data to substantiate that reducing the flight cycle threshold and
increasing the flight hour threshold would provide an acceptable level
of safety, and therefore, we have not revised the final rule in this
regard. However, as stated previously in the ``Request to Revise
Compliance Times Based on ``Sliding Scale'' Equation'' paragraph, we
have revised the compliance time specified in paragraph (a)(1) of the
final rule to refer to the compliance time specified in Revision 2 of
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0040. Airplanes having 70,000 total
flight hours and 10,000 total flight cycles would be compliant within
the compliance time specified in Revision 2.
Request To Add Reference About the Early Accomplishment of the
Modification
One commenter states it is concerned that the proposed AD does not
include reference to flag note 2 of Figure 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin
777-57A0040, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2003, which states that ``the
full benefit of the modification will not be realized if the
modification is accomplished too early in the airplane life.'' The
commenter notes that, if the modification is done early and then cracks
are discovered later, there may be future regulatory action. The
commenter contends this would create an unnecessary burden to operators
that accomplish the actions in the proposed AD.
We infer from the commenter's statement that it requests that a
reference be added to the final rule regarding the early accomplishment
of the modification as specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
However, as stated previously in the ``Request to Revise Compliance
Times Based on ``Sliding Scale'' Equation'' paragraph, Revision 2 of
the service bulletin is referenced as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the required actions in the final rule.
Revision 2 of the service bulletin does not include flag note 2 of
Figure 1 from Revision 1 of the service bulletin. After the
manufacturer did further analysis, the manufacturer determined that the
note is not necessary. We have not revised the final rule in this
regard.
Request To Revise the Cost Impact
One commenter states that actions specified in the proposed AD will
take 200 work hours and that the materials will cost $24,000, for a
total cost of $464,266 per airplane.
We infer from the commenter's statement that it requests that the
estimate be revised in the Cost Impact section of the final rule. We
partially agree with the commenter to revise the Cost Impact section of
the final rule. We have revised the work hour estimate in the final
rule from approximately 34 work hours per airplane to 68 work hours per
airplane. We do not agree to revise the work hour estimate to the
commenter's work hour estimate of 200 work hours per airplane. The work
hour
[[Page 28799]]
estimate in the final rule represents only the time necessary to
perform the specific actions actually required by the final rule. The
work hour estimate typically does not include incidental costs, such as
the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time
necessitated by other administrative actions. The commenter's estimate
of $24,000 for materials is within the range specified in the Cost
Impact section of the final rule, which specifies parts cost between
approximately $21,686 and $24,803. We have not made a change to the
parts cost estimate in the final rule in this regard.
Changes to Delegation Authority
Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We
have revised this final rule to delegate the authority to approve an
alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD (if
specifically authorized) to the Authorized Representative for the
Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated Engineering
Representative (DER).
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest
require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described.
These changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator
nor increase the scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 262 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 73 airplanes of U.S. registry
will be affected by this final rule, that it would take approximately
68 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, and
that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will
cost between approximately $21,686 and $24,803 per airplane. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the final rule on U.S. operators is
estimated to be between $1,905,738 and $2,133, 279, or between $26,106
and $29,223 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated 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 AD.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
2005-10-17 Boeing: Amendment 39-14094. Docket 2003-NM-214-AD.
Applicability: Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-57A0040, Revision 2, dated February 24, 2005.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracks in the lower t-chord at the bolt holes
common to the paddle fittings that could result in fractures of one
or more of the t-chord segments, which could lead to detachment of
the lower wing panel and consequent loss of the wing, accomplish the
following:
Modification of the Lower Paddle Fitting Bolt Holes/Fastener
Replacement
(a) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this AD, modify the bolt holes of the lower side of the
body splice t-chord common to the paddle fittings of the lower wing
panel (includes performing a high frequency eddy current inspection
of the fastener hole for cracks, repairing the hole if necessary,
and replacing the fasteners with new inconel bolts) by accomplishing
all of the actions specified in ``Part 2--Preventative
Modification'' of the Work Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
777-57A0040, Revision 2, dated February 24, 2005, except as provided
by paragraph (b) of this AD. Any applicable repair must be
accomplished before further flight.
(1) At the time specified in Figure 1 of the service bulletin.
Where the service bulletin refers to compliance times as flight
hours and flight cycles, this AD refers to the compliance times as
total flight hours and total flight cycles.
(2) Within 1,500 days or 8,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever is first.
(b) If any crack is found during the modification required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, and the service bulletin specifies to
contact Boeing for additional instructions: Before further flight,
repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the
certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing 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.
[[Page 28800]]
Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(c) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD
according to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0040, Revision 1, dated
July 10, 2003, are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding action specified in this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Seattle ACO,
is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this
AD.
Incorporation by Reference
(e) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be
done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0040,
Revision 2, dated February 24, 2005. This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get copies of the service
information, go to Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected 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: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
Effective Date
(f) This amendment becomes effective on June 23, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9, 2005.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-9875 Filed 5-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P