Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F Series Airplanes, 67939-67946 [05-22310]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67939-67946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2004-19866; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series 
airplanes. The original NPRM would have required verifying the part and 
serial numbers of certain main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam pivot 
pins; replacing those pivot pins with new or overhauled pivot pins if 
necessary; and ultimately replacing all pivot pins with new, improved 
pivot pins. The original NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that 
numerous fractures of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin have been found and 
that some pivot pins may have had improper rework during manufacture. 
This action revises the original NPRM by adding new inspections; 
revising the inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals; and 
revising the compliance time for replacing all pivot pins with new-
material pins. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent 
fracture of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin, which could lead to possible 
loss of the MLG truck during takeoff or landing and consequent loss of 
control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by December 
5, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on 
this supplemental NPRM.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http: //dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.
    You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at 
https://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, 
on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. This docket 
number is FAA-2004-19866; the directorate identifier for this docket is 
2004-NM-25-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candice Gerretsen, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
917-6428; fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or 
arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an 
address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2004-19866; 
Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-25-AD'' at the beginning of your 
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. 
We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may 
amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments submitted, without change, to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will 
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function 
of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of 
our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment 
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement 
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), 
or you can visit https://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    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 in the Nassif Building at the DOT 
street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the 
AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System (DMS) receives 
them.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the ``original NPRM'') for certain Boeing 
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. The original NPRM was 
published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2004 (69 FR 75270). 
The original NPRM proposed to require verifying the part and serial 
numbers of certain main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam pivot pins; 
replacing those pivot pins with new or overhauled pivot pins if 
necessary; and ultimately replacing all pivot pins with new, improved 
pivot pins.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer notified us 
that the parts necessary to accomplish the terminating action are not 
available in quantities that are sufficient for operators to accomplish 
the action within the proposed compliance time. In addition, the number 
of pivot pin failures has increased. This increase in failures combined 
with the limited

[[Page 67940]]

availability of parts for the terminating action caused the 
manufacturer to develop new inspection methods that provide an 
acceptable level of safety until the necessary parts can be obtained 
for the terminating action. These new inspection methods are provided 
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin, 767-32A0199, Revision 2, dated May 
26, 2005, which is described below. The manufacturer has assured us 
that it will be able to meet the new replacement schedule specified in 
this supplemental NPRM.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199, 
Revision 2, dated May 26, 2005 (Revision 1, dated July 22, 2004, was 
cited as the acceptable source of service information for certain 
actions in the original NPRM). This service bulletin describes 
procedures for doing repetitive lubrications of the old-material MLG 
bogie beam pivot pins. The service bulletin also describes procedures 
for doing repetitive inspections of the old-material pins according to 
one or more of the following three options, as applicable. The 
compliance time for doing the first inspection is before the pivot pin 
is 24 or 48 months old since the pivot pin was new or last overhauled, 
or within 12 months after the Revision 2 release date of the service 
bulletin, whichever is later.
    Repetitive inspection option 1: Measure the length of the installed 
pivot pin to make sure it is not fractured. If the length of the pin 
exceeds the maximum shown in Figure 1 of the service bulletin, the 
service bulletin states that the pin may be fractured and gives 
procedures for doing the related investigative and corrective actions 
in repetitive inspection option 3. The service bulletin specifies that 
this measurement should be repeated one time per day.
    Repetitive inspection option 2: Do an ultrasonic inspection of the 
installed pin for cracks. If any crack is found during this inspection, 
the service bulletin gives procedures for doing the related 
investigative and corrective actions in repetitive inspection option 3. 
The service bulletin specifies that this inspection should be repeated 
every 45 or 90 days, depending on the configuration group to which the 
airplane belongs.
    Repetitive inspection option 3: Do detailed inspections with the 
pivot pin removed. The first detailed inspection is of the outer 
diameter of the pivot pin for bronze transfer, cracks, corrosion, and 
damage to the chrome plate. If a crack is found in the pivot pin, or if 
the pivot pin outer diameter has bronze transfer or damage to the 
chrome plate, the service bulletin gives procedures for the corrective 
action of replacing the pin with a serviceable old-material pin or with 
a new-material pin before further flight. Replacing the pin with a new-
material pin is terminating action for the remaining detailed 
inspections. The second detailed inspection is of the bogie beam pivot 
bushings for discrepancies such as damage, migration, rotation, or 
corrosion around the flange. If there is no discrepancy, the service 
bulletin states that no further inspection is necessary until the next 
repetitive inspection. If there is a discrepancy, the service bulletin 
gives procedures for corrective actions and related investigative 
actions, and specifies that operators do the third detailed inspection. 
The third detailed inspection is of the inner cylinder pivot bushings 
for discrepancies such as damage, migration, rotation, cracks, or 
corrosion around the flange. If there is no discrepancy, the service 
bulletin states that no further inspection is necessary until the next 
repetitive inspection. If there is a discrepancy, the service bulletin 
gives procedures for related investigative and corrective actions. The 
corrective actions and related investigative actions include further 
detailed inspections, eddy current inspections, etch inspections, and 
dye penetrant inspections, as applicable, for cracks, corrosion and 
other damage as applicable; and contacting Boeing for repair 
instructions. The service bulletin specifies that this inspection 
should be repeated every 24 or 48 months.
    The alert service bulletin also gives procedures for replacing the 
pivot pin with a new-material pin. This replacement terminates the 
repetitive lubrications and repetitive inspections for the replaced 
pivot pin. The replacement involves, first, the related investigative 
actions of doing a detailed inspection of the pivot bushings and the 
pivot bushing on each lug of the MLG inner cylinder for discrepancies 
such as damage, migration, rotation, corrosion, and the bushing inner 
diameters, and corrective actions and related investigative actions, if 
necessary, before doing the replacement. Also, before installing the 
new-material pivot pin, the service bulletin gives procedures for 
cleaning pivot joint bushings that have not been previously replaced 
during the repetitive inspections, and applying new, specified, grease 
at the pivot joint lubrication fittings on the bogie beam and inner 
cylinder; applying the specified grease by hand to the entire inner 
diameter of each of the pivot bushings on the bogie beam inner cylinder 
and the outer cylinder of the pivot pin. After the new-material pivot 
pin is installed, the service bulletin specifies that operators should 
lubricate the MLG pivot pins and the truck assemblies with the 
specified grease.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is 
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM.

Support for the Proposed Rule

    Three commenters express support for the original NPRM. One of the 
commenters, the airplane manufacturer, states that it agrees with 
combining the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-32A0199, 
Revision 1, dated July 22, 2004, and 767-32A0202, dated July 22, 2004. 
The commenter states that releasing one AD to address the actions in 
both service bulletins benefits the operators of the 767 fleet because 
it will simplify logistics and reduce labor costs. The commenter 
further states that the number of suspect pins listed in Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0202 is very small (less then 20) when compared 
with the larger population of pins that will eventually need to be 
replaced.

Request To Separate Actions in Two Service Bulletins

    Another commenter, an airplane operator, states that the conditions 
addressed by Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-32A0199 and 767-32A0202 
are unrelated and should not be combined in the same AD. The commenter 
maintains that the two service bulletins address very separate, 
unrelated problems written against the same part: Potential 
manufacturing irregularities in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
32A0202, and the availability of a new-material part in Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0199. The commenter asserts that if the data 
had supported that manufacturing irregularities affected part 
performance, it would support mandating Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
767-32A0202, but that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199 is 
unrelated and should not be mandated. The commenter summarizes that the 
original NPRM lacks clarity regarding what unsafe condition the FAA is 
attempting to correct, and requests that the FAA either retract the 
original NPRM, or supersede with a new NPRM

[[Page 67941]]

that addresses, clearly and concisely, the FAA's concern.
    We disagree with the commenter. Inspections and replacements that 
satisfy certain requirements of both bulletins can be performed at the 
same time. As stated by the previous commenter, combining the actions 
from these two service bulletins benefits the operators of the 767 
fleet because it will simplify logistics and reduce labor costs. We 
agree with the commenter that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202 
addresses a quality assurance problem with certain pivot pins, and 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199 addresses deficiencies in the 
original design of the pivot pin; however, we do not agree that these 
service bulletins are unrelated and should not be combined in the same 
AD. Both service bulletins address failure of the same pivot pin, and 
therefore address the same unsafe condition, which is fracture of the 
MLG bogie beam pivot pin, which could lead to possible loss of the MLG 
truck during takeoff or landing and consequent loss of control of the 
airplane. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Allow Time-Limited Re-installations With Additional 
Inspections

    The airplane manufacturer requests that the supplemental NPRM allow 
old-material pivot pins (part numbers (P/Ns) 16111145-2, -3, or -4) to 
be re-installed on a time-limited basis in lieu of installing the new-
material pin (P/N 16111145-5), provided the old-material pin is free of 
cracks, corrosion, heat damage, and chrome-plate distress. The 
commenter proposes that the old-material pins could be used on a time-
limited basis, and repetitive inspections required prior to replacement 
with the new-material pins.
    We agree with the commenter. The airplane manufacturer was not able 
to supply sufficient new-material pins soon enough to satisfy the 
requirements proposed in the original NPRM. The commenter has assured 
the FAA that sufficient new-material pins will be supplied within the 
new replacement schedule proposed in this supplemental NPRM. The 
proposed additional inspections are designed to detect failure of the 
pin in the interim before the final terminating action of replacing the 
pins with new-material pins is accomplished. We have revised the 
supplemental NPRM to include the time-limited re-installation and the 
repetitive inspections.

Request To Allow Six Months for Replacement

    The airplane manufacturer requests that paragraph (f)(2) of the 
original NPRM be revised to remove the requirement to replace suspect 
pins ``prior to further flight.'' The commenter instead requests that 
operators be allowed six months to accomplish the replacement, as 
stated in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202. The commenter 
states that the six-month period would allow time for operators to plan 
for the pin replacement and to obtain the required parts while still 
maintaining an acceptable level of safety.
    We agree with the commenter. Upon further review, we have 
determined that with the new repetitive inspections provided in this 
supplemental NPRM, a six-month replacement period provides an 
acceptable level of safety. We have revised the supplemental NPRM to 
include this change.

Request for Alternate Solutions That Have Less Cost Impact

    The commenter is concerned that it will face extreme cost 
investments as a result of the mandatory pivot pin replacement. The 
commenter recommends that the FAA evaluate alternative solutions that 
have less cost impact for operators.
    We agree that evaluating alternative solutions is important. Boeing 
has been evaluating many possible solutions since the fourth reported 
pivot pin failure in 2002 (previous failures occurred in 1991 and 
1996). In 2002, in-service experience indicated the poor lubrication 
was the primary cause of the failure; however, some recent in-service 
failures show that the joint was properly lubricated. Therefore, we 
concluded that even with frequent lubrication, the rotating friction in 
the joint tends to dry the grease and produce localized heat damage on 
the pin. Boeing has reviewed many different options and has concluded 
that replacing the pin with the new-material pin is the most cost-
effective and best solution. In addition, the new repetitive 
inspections and final replacement schedule will allow operators more 
time to plan for the cost of replacement.

Request To Remove Actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202

    The commenter, an airplane operator, asserts that the conditions 
listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202, dated July 22, 
2004, address potential documentation errors and do not constitute a 
safety concern that exists or is likely to exist on other airplanes of 
the same design. The commenter maintains that the service bulletin 
states that some pivot pins may have been improperly processed during 
manufacture, and that the service bulletin recommends that the subject 
pivot pins, listed by P/N and S/N, be removed and either scrapped or 
overhauled. The commenter further advises that the manufacturer, in a 
telex to airplane operators, summarized that the subject pivot pins had 
discrepancies during manufacture, but that the manufacturing records 
were not complete in terms of showing all corrective processes. The 
commenter points out that the manufacturer, in an additional telex to 
airplane operators, stated that there were no reported pivot pin 
failures caused by the conditions in the service bulletin, and that the 
pivot pins were manufactured and sent to Boeing between 1998 and 2001, 
and therefore have been in service for 3 to 16 [sic] years. It has been 
the commenter's experience that the potential manufacturing defects 
reported in this service bulletin (heat damage, anode burns, or 
cracking), which should have been found by magnetic particle inspection 
or nital etch, typically result in a rapid failure of the part, usually 
in less than 6 months. The commenter points out that a telex from the 
manufacturer stated that Boeing concurs that many of these types of 
defects would result in early failure of the parts. The expectation of 
early failure, and the lack of failure of any pivot pin listed in the 
service bulletin leads the commenter to conclude that the ``problem'' 
addressed in the service bulletin is poor recordkeeping rather than 
poor quality pivot pins. The commenter asserts that the fact that 
failures would be expected rapidly, in combination with no failures in 
this group of pivot pins during the last 16 [sic] years, supports its 
position that the conditions in the service bulletin address potential 
documentation errors rather than a safety concern.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting that we remove the 
actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202 from the 
requirements of the supplemental NPRM. We disagree with the request. We 
recognize that to date we have not received any reports of pin failures 
due to this condition. However, we have received numerous reports of 
failures in pins manufactured properly; and considering that the pins 
that are the subject of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202 were 
not manufactured appropriately and do not meet the manufacturing 
standards, premature fracture is likely to occur.

[[Page 67942]]

Therefore, in the interest of air safety and the public interest, we 
have determined that retaining the actions of this service bulletin is 
necessary. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Review Options Other Than Pivot Pin Replacement

    The commenter agrees with the FAA's desire to address pivot pin 
failures, but states that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199, 
Revision 1, authorizes the use of a new pivot pin rather than giving a 
comprehensive summary of all possible actions that could reduce pivot 
pin failures. The commenter points out that a variety conditions such 
as runway roughness, grease type, lubrication interval, and temperature 
during lube visits are all known factors that can contribute to 
premature pivot pin failure. The commenter further states that none of 
these factors are addressed in this service bulletin. The commenter 
gives the opinion that this service bulletin is not a comprehensive 
discussion of the various ways to reduce premature pivot pin failure, 
but is only the ``authorization'' of one particular method; the new-
material pivot pin. The commenter maintains that mandating only one 
possible corrective action without addressing the other causes of pivot 
pin damage could be misleading as to the extent of the issue, and could 
prove to be a costly burden for operators that do not fully address the 
unsafe condition. The commenter then suggests that we address several 
options to reduce pivot pin failures such as grease type, lubrication 
intervals, and temperature during lubrication intervals. The commenter 
states that these options are far more significant factors in 
addressing premature pivot pin failure than the actions in the service 
bulletin, and also states that by implementing these options it has 
avoided having had an in-service pivot pin failure. The commenter feels 
that there is a significant lack of data, illustrated by the fact that 
the service bulletin states that several operators have reported pivot 
pin failures, although none has resulted in loss of the main landing 
gear (MLG) truck. The commenter argues that this lack of data supports 
a decision to revisit this proposed AD with the manufacturer in order 
to address the entire problem at hand.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that the problem 
should be revisited, and we are issuing this supplemental NPRM as a 
result of this and other comments we have received. In addition, Boeing 
has revised service bulletin 767-32A0199, which is now at Revision 2, 
dated May 26, 2005. This revision of the service bulletin is cited as 
the appropriate source of service information for certain actions in 
this supplemental NPRM. Boeing revised the service bulletin because of 
the increased rate of pivot pin fractures since the release of Revision 
1. Among other things, the service bulletin addresses lubrication 
intervals. We also agree that grease type, and temperature during lube 
visits are all known factors that can contribute to premature pivot pin 
failure; service experience has shown this. Although we agree that 
runway roughness can contribute to premature pivot pin failure, it does 
not affect any U.S. operator of these airplanes and is therefore not 
addressed in this supplemental NPRM. We disagree with removing the 
requirement to replace pivot pins with new pivot pins made of new 
material. Some of the fractured pins have shown evidence of correct 
grease, and no evidence of lack of lubrication. The original pin 
material is very sensitive to heat damage in service, even with proper 
maintenance; the new pin material is more robust. We also disagree that 
there is a significant lack of data supporting the need for this 
proposed action, illustrated by lack of examples of the loss of the MLG 
truck. As stated previously, the number of pivot pin failures has 
increased since the release of Revision 1 of the service bulletin. In 
one case, both halves of the pivot pin migrated out of the joint, and 
the airplane made a successful landing with the MLG truck attached only 
by the MLG brake rods. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM as a 
result of this comment, though we have reviewed other options, such as 
grease type and temperature during lubrication visits, and made some 
changes, addressed below, based on more detailed comments on similar 
topics from the same commenter.

Request To Mandate Use of Royco-11MS Grease and Prohibit Mixing of 
Grease

    The same commenter requests that we consider mandating the use of 
Royco-11MS grease. The commenter asserts that one reason it has had no 
in-service pivot pin failures is due to the fact that it uses only this 
grease during lubrication. The commenter points out that Boeing 
Maintenance Tip 767-MT-32-022 discusses lubrication of critical landing 
gear joints, including the pivot pin, and states that this grease is 
desirable for highly loaded movable joints and that other grease is not 
adequate at these locations. The commenter explains that Royco-11MS 
grease includes molybdenum, which acts like roller bearings in the 
joint and helps retain the grease in highly loaded joints such as the 
pivot pin joint. In addition, the commenter emphasizes that both Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletins 767-32A0199 and 767-32A0202 call for 
lubrication with Royco-11MS grease.
    The same commenter requests that we consider prohibiting the mixing 
of grease types during lubrication for the same reason cited above. The 
commenter cites Flight Standards Information Bulletin FSAW 02-02B, 
which discusses the severity of the concern regarding mixing grease, 
and provides recommendations regarding purging old grease when grease 
usage is changed in a specific joint. The commenter stresses that both 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-32A0199 and 767-32A0202 call for 
installation with Royco-11MS grease. The commenter argues that if an 
operator is currently using a grease other than Royco-11MS grease, that 
operator will be forced to mix grease at that location because that 
grease is now mandated by the AD action, or the operator will be forced 
to obtain an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in order to use 
its standard grease. The commenter emphasizes that the supplemental 
NPRM should address grease in a manner that reduces the likelihood of 
mixing grease.
    We agree with the commenter. Royco-11MS grease is the only grease 
currently approved by the manufacturer for this joint, for the same 
reasons cited by the commenter. With the frequent lubrications proposed 
by this supplemental NPRM, using only Royco-11MS grease, proper 
lubrication procedures (i.e., purging all old grease from the joint 
while lubricating) will ensure that old grease is purged from the 
joint. However, we have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this 
regard because the service bulletins, which are cited as the 
appropriate source of service information for this supplemental NPRM, 
already specify using this grease.

Request To Mandate Minimum Temperature During Lubrication Visits

    The same commenter requests that we consider mandating minimum 
temperatures during lubrication visits. The commenter asserts that one 
reason it has had no in-service pivot pin failures is that it holds to 
a minimum ambient temperature during lubrication. The commenter states 
that certain maintenance documents recommend that operators ensure that 
grease application is done when temperatures are above freezing because 
cold grease

[[Page 67943]]

will not flow and is therefore not likely to adequately lubricate a 
large joint, such as the pivot pin joint, where the grease has to 
travel.
    We disagree with the commenter. Certain maintenance procedures are 
documented in the component maintenance manual and the airplane 
maintenance manual; among these procedures are lubrication procedures. 
These lubrication procedures include industry ``best practices'' which 
are ensuring that grease is dispensed into grease fittings until the 
used grease is visually removed and only new grease comes out. If 
operators follow these lubrication procedures, the grease will be 
applied properly. Mandating a minimum temperature will not ensure that 
proper lubrication has taken place. We have not changed the 
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Mandate Shorter Lubrication Intervals

    The same commenter requests that we consider mandating shorter 
lubrication intervals. The commenter asserts that one reason it has had 
no in-service pivot pin failures is that it has an aggressive 
lubrication schedule. These lubrication intervals are addressed in 
numerous sources including the maintenance planning document (MPD). The 
commenter states that it lubricates the pivot pin joints with Royco-
11MS grease every 125 hours, more frequently than the 1A recommendation 
in the MPD.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree with mandating 
shorter lubrication intervals. As part of the supplemental NPRM, we are 
increasing the length of time (for some airplanes) that the old-
material pins can remain in service. In order for the old-material pins 
to remain in service and still provide an acceptable level of safety, 
we have specified more frequent lubrication in order to minimize the 
risk of heat damage. Boeing's research shows that lubricating every 14 
days or 50 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier, will be more 
effective in preventing heat damage to the pins than the 1A interval, 
which is typically equivalent to 300 flight cycles. We have added a new 
paragraph (h) to the supplemental NPRM to account for these shorter 
lubrication intervals.

Request To Allow Review of Maintenance Records

    Several commenters requested that we revise the supplemental NPRM 
to allow the option to review maintenance records to determine the P/N 
and S/N of the pivot pin in lieu of inspecting the pin itself as 
currently specified in the proposed AD. The commenters maintain records 
for the applicable pins installed on all aircraft. These records 
identify both P/Ns and S/Ns.
    We agree with the commenters. Reviewing existing records of P/Ns 
and S/Ns is an acceptable method for identifying the pivot pin. We have 
revised paragraph (f) of the supplemental NPRM to include this review.

Request To Clearly Exclude Certain Pivot Pins

    One commenter requests that we revise paragraph (f)(1) of the 
original NPRM to clearly and specifically exclude pivot pins that have 
a P/N and S/N that is outside the applicable range of the proposal. The 
commenter suggests that we include a citation of Figure 1 of Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202 in this paragraph in order to 
exclude certain pins.
    We infer that the commenter finds paragraph (f)(1) to be unclear, 
and we agree with the requested change in order to provide the greatest 
clarity. We have revised paragraph (f)(1) of the supplemental NPRM to 
include the commenter's suggested change.

Request To Include Alternative Method for Replacing Pivot Pins

    One commenter requests that we incorporate in the supplemental NPRM 
a more efficient, alternative method for replacing the pivot pins. The 
commenter makes this suggestion in order to avoid the costly purchase 
of numerous new-material pivot pins, and possible manufacturing 
shortages of these pins. The commenter feels that its suggestion would 
provide an acceptable level of safety. The commenter's suggested 
alternative method involves removing any old-material pins in 
accordance with Boeing CMM, Subject 32-11-30, stripping the chrome 
plate, and doing a magnetic particle examination of the base metal for 
cracks and/or discrepancies. The commenter then suggests refinishing 
serviceable units in accordance with Boeing CMM, Subject 32-11-30, 
updating the bogie beam and inner cylinder pivot pin bushing in 
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32-0021, Revision 3, and 
assembling the pivot pin joint using only Royco 11-MS grease. The 
commenter then suggests identifying each of the five pivot pin joint 
zerk fitting locations per gear to specify using only Royco 11-MS 
grease, and setting the lubrication interval at the 1A intervals from 
the MPD.
    We disagree with the commenter. The commenter did not provide any 
justification to show that its proposal offers an acceptable level of 
safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of the 
supplemental NPRM, if the commenter would like to submit this proposal 
as an AMOC with the appropriate substantiation, we will consider the 
proposal at that time.

Explanation of Further Changes Made to the Original NPRM

    Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We 
have revised this supplemental NPRM to delegate the authority to 
approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair that would 
be required by this supplemental NPRM to the Authorized Representative 
for the Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated Engineering 
Representative (DER).
    We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure 
for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on 
any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; 
therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the 
comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on 
this supplemental NPRM.

Differences Between the Supplemental NPRM and the Service Bulletins

    Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199, Revision 2, 
specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for certain 
compliance times for ``Group 2 airplanes that have been operated at 
weights less than 353,000 pounds since pivot pin installation,'' this 
supplemental NPRM would require operators to contact the FAA for an 
AMOC for new compliance times in accordance with paragraph (l) of the 
supplemental NPRM.
    In addition, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199, Revision 2, 
specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for instructions 
on how to repair certain conditions, but this supplemental NPRM would 
require operators to repair 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 Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we 
have authorized to make those findings.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199, Revision 2, and Boeing 
Alert

[[Page 67944]]

Service Bulletin 767-32A0202, specify compliance times relative to the 
date the service bulletin was issued or released; however, this 
supplemental NPRM would require compliance times relative to the 
effective date of the AD.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202 specifies that operators 
may do a ``check'' of the P/Ns and S/Ns of certain MLG bogie beam pivot 
pins. However, this supplemental NPRM would call this action a 
``general visual inspection.'' We have determined that trained 
maintenance personnel must perform this action, whereas untrained 
personnel may perform a ``check.'' Note 1 of the supplemental NPRM 
describes a general visual inspection.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 857 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for 
U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental NPRM.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Number of
                                                      Average                                                          U.S.-
                Action                  Work hours   labor rate            Parts              Cost per airplane      registered         Fleet cost
                                                      per hour                                                       airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pin Inspection.......................            1          $65  None....................  $65....................          374  $24,310.
Repetitive Lubrication...............            1          $65  None....................  $65, per inspection              374  $55,705, per
                                                                                            cycle.                                lubrication cycle.
Repetitive Inspection Option 1:                  1          $65  None....................  $65, per ispection               374  N/A.
 Length Measurement.                                                                        cycle.
Repetitive Inspection Option 2:                  2          $65  None....................  $130, per inspection             374  N/A.
 Ultrasonic cycle Inspection.                                                               cycle.
Repetitive Inspection Option 3:                 14          $65  None....................  $910, per inspection             374  N/A.
 Detailed Inspection (with Pivot Pin                                                        cycle.
 Removed).
Pivot Pin Short-term Replacement                12          $65  $5,369, per pivot pin...  $6,149, per pivot pin..          374  N/A.
 (Optional), pin per pivot.
Terminating Action (Permanent                   14          $65  $11,686, per pivot pin..  $12,596, per pivot pin.          374  $4,710,904.
 Replacement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 supplemental NPRM. 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 FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2004-19866; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-
25-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on 
this AD action by December 5, 2005.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F 
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202, dated July 22, 2004, and 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199, Revision 2, dated May 26, 
2005.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD was prompted by reports indicating that numerous 
fractures of the main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam pivot

[[Page 67945]]

pin have been found and that some pivot pins may have had improper 
rework during manufacture. We are issuing this AD to prevent 
fracture of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin, which could lead to 
possible loss of the MLG truck during takeoff or landing and 
consequent loss of control 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.

Inspection for Part Number and Serial Number, and Short-Term 
Replacement

    (f) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a 
general visual inspection of the part number (P/N) and serial number 
(S/N) of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
32A0202, dated July 22, 2004. A review of airplane maintenance 
records is acceptable for compliance with this paragraph if the P/N 
and S/N of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin can be positively determined 
from that review.
    (1) If the S/N of the pivot pin contains the letters ``MA'' or 
``MAM,'' or if the S/N of the pivot pin is not listed in Figure 1 of 
the service bulletin, no further action is required by this 
paragraph.
    (2) If any pivot pin has a P/N and S/N that is listed in Figure 
1 of the service bulletin, within 6 months after the effective date 
of this AD: Replace the pivot pin with an overhauled pin having P/N 
161T1145-2, -3, or -4, that includes a chrome plate strip as part of 
the pin overhaul; or with a new-material pin having P/N 161T1145-5; 
in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD. Replacing the pin with 
a new-material pin having P/N 161T1145-5 in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, terminates the 
requirements of this AD for that pivot pin.


    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection 
is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, 
installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or 
irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching 
distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to 
ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This 
level of inspection is made under normally available lighting 
conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or 
droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or 
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain 
proximity to the area being checked.''


Discrepancy Reporting

    (g) If any pivot pin has a P/N and S/N listed in Figure 1 of 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0202, dated July 22, 2004, 
submit a report of the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this 
AD to the Manager, Airline Support, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 
P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, at the applicable 
time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. The report 
must include the P/N and S/N of the pivot pin, a description of any 
discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of 
landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information 
collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB 
Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this 
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this 
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of 
this AD.

Repetitive Lubrication

    (h) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Do the 
pivot pin special lubrication in accordance with Part 1 of the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
32A0199, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated May 26, 2005. 
Repeat the lubrication thereafter at intervals not to exceed 14 days 
or 50 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier. Doing the terminating 
action in paragraph (j) of this AD ends the inspection requirements 
of this paragraph.

Repetitive Pin Inspections

    (i) Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this 
AD, at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0199, 
Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated May 26, 2005, do one of the 
following inspections of the installed pivot pin in accordance with 
the specified part of the service bulletin: Part 2--Length 
Measurement, Part 3--Ultrasonic Inspection, or Part 4--Detailed 
Inspection; and do any applicable related investigative and 
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection 
thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin. Doing the replacement 
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD ends the inspection 
requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time based 
on the release date of Revision 2 of the service bulletin, this AD 
requires compliance based on the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where the Note at the end of Table 1 in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing 
for a longer compliance time for ``Group 2 airplanes that have been 
operated at weights less than 353,000 pounds since pivot pin 
installation'': Operators must contact the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, for an alternative method of 
compliance in accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD for any 
requests for a longer compliance time.

    Note 2: 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.''

Terminating Action

    (j) At the applicable compliance time in paragraph (j)(1) or 
(j)(2) of this AD, replace any MLG bogie beam pivot pin having P/N 
161T1145-2, -3, or -4, with a new, improved pivot pin having P/N 
161T1145-5; and do all applicable related investigative and 
corrective actions before further flight; in accordance with Part 5 
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
767-32A0199, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated May 26, 2005. 
Where the Note at the end of Table 1 in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing 
for a longer compliance time for ``Group 2 airplanes that have been 
operated at weights less than 353,000 pounds since pivot pin 
installation''; operators must contact the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, for an alternative method of 
compliance in accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD for any 
requests for a longer compliance time. Doing the replacement in 
accordance with this paragraph terminates the requirements of this 
AD for that pivot pin.
    (1) For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 1 
airplanes: Within 96 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 2 
airplanes: Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD.

Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issues of Service Bulletin

    (k) Replacing any pivot pin with a new, improved pivot pin 
having P/N 161T1145-5, before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this 
AD is considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding 
action specified in this AD.


              Table 1.--Previous Issues of Service Bulletin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Boeing Alert Service Bulletin        Revision              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
767-32A0199.....................  Original..........  April 8, 2004.
767-32A0199.....................  1.................  July 22, 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to 
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the 
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) 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.

[[Page 67946]]

    (3) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with Sec.  
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the 
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards 
Certificate Holding District Office.


    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 3, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-22310 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P