Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes, 16721-16725 [E6-4827]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Actions Accomplished According to
Previous Revisions of Service Bulletins
(m) Actions done before the effective date
of this AD in accordance with the service
16721
bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD are
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirement in this AD.
TABLE 1.—PREVIOUS REVISIONS OF SERVICE BULLETINS
Airbus service bulletin
Revision level
Date
A300–28–0070 ...................................................
A300–24–0073 ...................................................
A300–24–0085 ...................................................
A300–24–0085 ...................................................
A300–24–0085 ...................................................
A300–24–0085 ...................................................
A300–28–057 .....................................................
A300–24–073 .....................................................
A300–24–073 .....................................................
A300–24–073 .....................................................
A300–24–6004 ...................................................
A300–24–6004 ...................................................
A300–28–6018 ...................................................
A300–24–6043 ...................................................
A300–24–6043 ...................................................
A300–24–6043 ...................................................
A300–24–6043 ...................................................
A300–24–6043 ...................................................
A300–24–6043 ...................................................
A300–24–6084 ...................................................
A310–24–2009 ...................................................
A310–24–2009 ...................................................
A310–24–2009 ...................................................
Original .............................................................
3 .......................................................................
Original .............................................................
03 .....................................................................
04 .....................................................................
05 .....................................................................
1 .......................................................................
Original .............................................................
1 .......................................................................
2 .......................................................................
1 .......................................................................
2 .......................................................................
Original .............................................................
Original .............................................................
01 .....................................................................
02 .....................................................................
03 .....................................................................
04 .....................................................................
05 .....................................................................
Original .............................................................
Original .............................................................
1 .......................................................................
2 .......................................................................
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(n)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Federal Aviation Administration
Related Information
(o) French airworthiness directive F–2005–
112 R1, dated September 14, 2005, also
addresses the subject of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
24, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–4825 Filed 4–3–06; 8:45 am]
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–20689; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NM–197–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 757 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes.
The original NPRM would have
required, for certain airplanes,
reworking the spar bonding path and
reapplying sealant; and, for certain other
airplanes, testing the electrical bond
between the engine fuel feed hose and
the wing front spar and, if applicable,
reworking the spar bonding path and
reapplying sealant. The original NPRM
also would have required, for all
airplanes, an inspection to ensure the
electrical bonding jumper is installed
between the engine fuel feed tube and
the adjacent wing station. The original
NPRM resulted from fuel system
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
September 19, 1996.
February 24, 1995.
December 12, 1994.
January 17, 1996.
July 23, 1996.
March 6, 2001.
September 15, 1988.
June 9, 1986.
January 28, 1988.
September 10, 1990.
January 28, 1988.
February 24, 1995.
June 21, 1988.
December 12, 1994.
February 7, 1995.
May 10, 1995.
January 17, 1996.
March 6, 2001.
August 30, 2001.
March 4, 2005.
May 31, 1985.
January 28, 1988.
February 24, 1995.
reviews conducted by the manufacturer.
This action revises the original NPRM
by requiring operators that may have
installed an incorrect O-ring to install
the correct part and do a re-test. We are
proposing this supplemental NPRM to
prevent arcing or sparking at the
interface between the bulkhead fittings
of the engine fuel feed tube and the
front spar during a lightning strike,
which could provide a possible ignition
source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel
tank and result in a fuel tank explosion.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by May 1,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
supplemental NPRM.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://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.
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
16722
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207, for service
information identified in this proposed
AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Thorson, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6508;
fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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 in the ADDRESSES section. Include
the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2005–20689; Directorate Identifier
2004–NM–197–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 that 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 may review the DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may 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 receives them.
Discussion
We proposed to amend 14 CFR part
39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for an AD (the ‘‘original
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
NPRM’’) for certain Boeing Model 757
airplanes. The original NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14594). The
original NPRM proposed to require, for
certain airplanes, reworking the spar
bonding path and reapplying sealant;
and, for certain other airplanes, testing
the electrical bond between the engine
fuel feed hose and the wing front spar
and, if applicable, reworking the spar
bonding path and reapplying sealant.
The original NPRM also proposed to
require, for all airplanes, an inspection
to ensure the electrical bonding jumper
is installed between the engine fuel feed
hose and the adjacent wing station.
Actions Since Original NPRM Was
Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM,
the manufacturer informed us that a part
number (P/N) for an O-ring installation
was identified incorrectly in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0076 and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–
28A0077, both dated August 27, 2004.
These service bulletins were referenced
as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the
required actions in the original NPRM.
This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) will
propose to require compliance with
Revision 1 of the service bulletins,
which cite the O-ring’s P/N correctly.
For Group 1 airplanes on which the
installation was done in accordance
with the original issue of the service
bulletins, and for Group 2 airplanes that
failed the bonding resistance test done
in accordance with the original NPRM,
this SNPRM will propose to require
installing an O-ring with the correct P/
N and doing a re-test.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Service
Bulletin 757–28A0076, Revision 1,
dated October 20, 2005; and Boeing
Service Bulletin 757–28A0077, Revision
1, dated October 20, 2005. The service
bulletins describe procedures that are
essentially the same as those described
in the original NPRM, except the service
bulletins, Revision 1, identify the
correct part number for the O-ring.
However, the service bulletins describe
additional work for airplanes that
incorporated the initial releases of the
service bulletins. The additional work
includes disassembling the coupling for
the engine fuel feed tube at the front
spar (left and right wings), and replacing
the O-ring that has the incorrect P/N
with a new O-ring with the correct P/N.
The additional work also includes doing
a leak test of the re-assembled coupling.
Accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information is intended to
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
adequately address the unsafe
condition.
Comments
We have considered the following
comments about the original NPRM.
Request To Extend Compliance Time
The Air Transport Association (ATA),
Continental Airlines, United Airlines,
Delta Airlines, U.S. Airways, and
American Airlines request that we
extend the proposed compliance time
for doing the bonding resistance test and
for inspecting the electrical bonding
jumper. The commenters request that
we extend the compliance time from 48
months to either 60 months or 72
months. The commenters request the
extension to all of the AD actions to be
scheduled to coincide with heavy
maintenance intervals when other
activities that require entering the fuel
tank are also scheduled. The
commenters state that extending the
compliance time would minimize the
number of fuel tank entries and also
minimize the manpower requirements
for draining the tank and doing entry
procedures. Several commenters note
that AD 2004–10–06, amendment 39–
13636 (69 FR 28046, May 18, 2004),
which is a similar AD for hydraulic tube
bonding in the fuel tank for lightning
protection, has a compliance time of 60
months, which provides an adequate
level of safety. One commenter notes
that there have been no large-jet
transport accidents related to lightning
strikes or bonding-related hazards since
1977, when the FAA strengthened
certification standards for bonding. The
same commenter notes that there have
been no lightning-induced fuel tank
events on Boeing Model 757 airplanes.
We partially agree with the
commenters. We agree with extending
the compliance time to 60 months
because we have assessed these specific
actions on other Boeing airplane models
and we have evaluated similar ADs such
as AD 2004–10–06, and AD 2005–04–
01, amendment 39–13973 (70 FR 7841,
February 16, 2005). In addition, we find
that extending the compliance time will
not adversely affect safety. The
manufacturer supports extending the
compliance time to 60 months, and
Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletins
757–28A0076 and 757–28A0077
include this revised time. We do not
agree with extending the compliance
time to 72 months. The commenters that
request this extension do not provide a
technical justification; however,
operators may request an alternate
method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures in
paragraph letter (l) of this proposed AD.
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Request To State that Bonding Jumper
Is Attached to a Fuel Tube
The Boeing Company requests that we
revise three sections of the proposed AD
in order to correctly identify that the
bonding jumper is attached to a fuel
tube mating with a fuel hose end fitting,
and not with the fuel hose. Boeing states
that this change will clarify that the
electrical bonding jumper is installed
between the engine fuel feed tube and
the adjacent wing section.
We agree. The suggested wording will
clarify the proposed AD. We have
changed the ‘‘Summary’’ section and
paragraph (i) of the proposed AD as
requested. However, we have not
changed the ‘‘Relevant Service
Information’’ section because that
section of the SNPRM does not contain
the same information as the same
section of the original NPRM.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Request To Correct Discrepancies in
Service Bulletins
Continental Airlines states that the
Work Instructions in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletins 757–28A0076 and
757–28A0077, both dated August 27,
2004, have discrepancies that prevent
accomplishing certain proposed actions.
Specifically, the following items are not
included in the alert service bulletins:
Removal and installation instructions
for the forward flap track fairing; a
statement that a special tool is required
for removing and reinstalling the
forward fitting of the fuel feedline; and
a note to clarify that leak tests of the fuel
system are required following rework.
Continental states that alternative
rework instructions would have to be
approved as AMOCs for each airplane to
comply successfully with the
requirements of the proposed AD.
We partially agree. We agree that a
note that leak tests of the fuel system are
necessary following rework would
clarify the service bulletin; Boeing has
added this note to Revision 1 of Boeing
Service Bulletins 757–28A0076 and
757–28A0077. Also, Boeing verified that
a special tool is not necessary because
a standard ‘‘crow’s foot’’ tool is readily
available that is sufficient to complete
the task. In addition, the instructions for
removing and reinstalling the forward
fitting are already included in the
service bulletins by reference to the
applicable airplane maintenance
manuals (AMM). Boeing can answer
additional questions if the commenter
requires further information. We
disagree that it is necessary for us to
mandate the changes proposed by
Continental because these changes have
to do with the content of the service
bulletins rather than the content of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposed AD, and they do not affect the
AD action. No changes to the proposed
AD are necessary.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
The ATA, American Airlines, and
Delta Airlines request that we revise the
hours estimated to complete the
proposed actions. The commenters state
that the estimates do not accurately
reflect the operations required for
defueling, access, and other
prerequisites for the proposed actions.
We disagree. The cost estimate
discussed in AD rulemaking actions
represents 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. However, Boeing
updated the work-hour estimates for the
bonding test and sealant application,
and for the bonding test, hose fitting and
spar bonding rework, and sealant
application. These changes are reflected
in the Cost Estimate table below.
In addition, after the original NPRM
was issued, we reviewed the figures we
have used over the past several years to
calculate AD costs to operators. To
account for various inflationary costs in
the airline industry, we find it necessary
to increase the labor rate used in these
calculations from $65 per work hour to
$80 per work hour. The costs of
compliance, below, reflect this increase
in the specified hourly labor rate.
Request To Remove Rework
Requirement for Certain Conditions
Delta Airlines states that, for certain
airplanes, Boeing Alert Service Bulletins
757–28A0076 and 757–28A0077 require
removing, cleaning, and re-installing the
fuel feedline fitting to ensure an
adequate bond is present for lightning
protection. Delta requests that we revise
the proposed AD to require reworking
the fitting only if a preliminary
resistance measurement fails. Delta
states that the proposed AD does not
take into account installations that may
have been completed per the revised
AMM procedures, which are consistent
with the service information.
We disagree. The resistance
measurement by itself does not ensure
that an adequate bond is present for
lightning protection. The only way to
ensure the presence of an adequate bond
capable of carrying the heavy electrical
currents that are caused by an attached
lightning strike is by a rigorous cleaning
and assembly process, with an electrical
bonding check as a final measure to
ensure proper assembly. However,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16723
interested parties may submit an AMOC
in accordance with the procedures in
paragraph letter (l) of this proposed AD,
if they can substantiate the following:
That an airplane has a fuel feedline
fitting that is installed in accordance
with a procedure equivalent to the
service bulletins referenced in the
proposed AD; and that the current
resistance measurement is within the
value required by the service bulletins.
No changes to the proposed AD are
necessary.
Request To Revise ‘‘Discussion’’ Section
The Boeing Company requests that we
revise the ‘‘Discussion’’ section to be
similar to that provided in NPRM
Docket No. FAA–2004–19680 (69 FR
68272, November 24, 2004). Boeing
states that the issue addressed in this
proposed AD is similar to that in NPRM
Docket No. FAA–2004–19680 in that it
was identified before the SFAR 88 safety
assessment. Boeing states that the
‘‘Discussion’’ section does not reflect
this fact.
We disagree. Although the issue was
identified before the Special Federal
Aviation Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’
Amendment 21–78, and subsequent
Amendments 21–82 and 21–83) safety
assessment, the non-compliance was
identified and included in the Boeing
757 SFAR 88 Safety Analysis
documents. This non-compliance was
tracked administratively and identified
as an unsafe condition requiring AD
action through the SFAR 88 process.
Therefore, it is considered an SFAR 88related AD. No changes to the proposed
AD are necessary.
FAA’s Determination and Proposed
Requirements of the SNPRM
Certain 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 SNPRM.
Difference Between the SNPRM and the
Service Bulletins
Although the referenced service
bulletins would allow an operator’s
equivalent procedures to be used for
aircraft maintenance manuals (AMM)
referenced in the service bulletins, this
proposed AD would require you to use
the referenced AMMs except as
provided in paragraph (k) of this
SNPRM.
Clarification of AMOC Paragraph
We have revised this action to clarify
the appropriate procedure for notifying
the principal inspector before using any
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
16724
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 1,040 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
This proposed AD would affect about
700 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
average labor rate is estimated to be $80
per work hour. Parts would be supplied
from operator stock. The following table
provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed
AD.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Work hours
Action/airplanes affected
Hose fitting and spar bonding rework and sealant application (Group 1 airplanes) ......................................................
Bonding test and sealant application (Group 2 airplanes that pass bonding test) .........................................................
Bonding test, hose fitting and spar bonding rework and sealant application (Group 2 airplanes that fail bonding test)
Replace O-ring for airplanes that incorporated original release of the service bulletins ................................................
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.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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 and placed it
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the
regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–20689;
Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–197–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by May 1, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757–
200, –200PF, and –200CB, series airplanes as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757–28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20,
2005; and Model 757–300 series airplanes as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757–28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20,
2005; certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD resulted from fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We
are issuing this AD to prevent arcing or
sparking at the interface between the
bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube
and the front spar during a lightning strike,
which could provide a possible ignition
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cost per airplane
11
12
18
3
$880
960
1,440
240
source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank
and result in a fuel tank explosion.
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.
Service Bulletin References
(f) The term ‘‘service bulletin(s),’’ as used
in this AD, means the Accomplishment
Instructions of the following service
bulletins, as applicable.
(1) For Model 757–200, –200CB, and
–200PF series airplanes: Boeing Service
Bulletin 757–28A0076, Revision 1, dated
October 20, 2005.
(2) For Model 757–300 series airplanes:
Boeing Service Bulletin 757–28A0077,
Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005.
Hose Fitting and Spar Bonding Rework and
Sealant Application
(g) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in
the service bulletins: Within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, rework the spar
bonding path between the end fitting of the
fuel feed hose and the front spar, and apply
sealant to the hose fitting on the forward and
aft side of the front spar and to the fitting and
tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay
wall, in accordance with the applicable
service bulletin.
Bonding Resistance Test
(h) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in
the service bulletins: Within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, do a bonding
resistance test between the fuel feed hose and
the front spars of the left and right wings, in
accordance with the service bulletins.
(1) If the test meets required resistance
limits, before further flight, apply sealant to
the end fitting of the fuel feed hose on the
aft side of the front spar and to the fitting and
tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay
wall, in accordance with the applicable
service bulletin.
(2) If the test does not meet required
resistance limits, before further flight, remove
any existing sealant at the front spar; rework
the spar bonding path between the end fitting
of the fuel feed hose and the front spar to
meet bonding resistance test requirements;
and apply sealant to the end fitting of the fuel
feed hose on the forward and aft sides of the
front spar, and to the fitting and tube
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall,
in accordance with the applicable service
bulletin.
Inspection of Electrical Bonding Jumper
(i) For all airplanes as identified in the
service bulletins: Within 60 months after the
effective date of this AD, perform a general
visual inspection and applicable corrective
actions to ensure that an electrical bonding
jumper is installed between the engine fuel
feed tube and the adjacent wing station
285.65 rib in the left and right wing fuel
tanks, in accordance with the service
bulletins.
Replacement of O-Ring and Test
(j) For airplanes on which the actions in
paragraphs (g) or (h)(2) of this AD were done
before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757–28A0076, dated August 27, 2004; and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0077,
dated August 27, 2004; as applicable: Within
60 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the O-ring, part number (P/N)
MS29513–330 with a new O-ring, P/N
MS29513–328, and do a leak test before
further flight after reassembly. Do all actions
in accordance with Part B of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service bulletin.
Exception to Accomplishment Instructions
in Service Bulletins
(k) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 757–
28A0076, Revision 1, and Boeing Service
Bulletin 757–28A0077, Revision 1, both
dated October 20, 2005, permit operator’s
equivalent procedures (OEP), this AD would
require you to use the referenced Airplane
Maintenance Manuals, except that operators
may use their own FAA-approved OEPs to
drain the left and right engine fuel tubes, to
drain and ventilate the fuel tanks, and to
enter the fuel tanks.
Actions Accomplished in Accordance With
Original Issues of Service Bulletins
(l) Actions done before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 757–28A0076, and Boeing Service
Bulletin 757–28A0077, both dated August 24,
2004, are acceptable for compliance only
with the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
24, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–4827 Filed 4–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–24290; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–243–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier
Model DHC–8–100, DHC–8–200, and
DHC–8–300 Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier Model DHC–8–100,
DHC–8–200, and DHC–8–300 series
airplanes. This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections of the
fluorescent light tube assemblies of the
cabin, lavatory, and sidewall, and
corrective actions if necessary. This
proposed AD would also provide for
optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. This proposed
AD results from reports of overheating
due to arcing between the fluorescent
tube pins and the lamp holder contacts.
The tubes had not been properly seated
during installation. We are proposing
this AD to prevent fumes, traces of
visible smoke, and fire at the fluorescent
light tube assembly.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by May 4, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://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,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16725
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier
Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K
1Y5, Canada, for service information
identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Wagner, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE–
172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York
11590; telephone (516) 228–7306; fax
(516) 794–5531.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your
comments to an address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket
number ‘‘FAA–2006–24290; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–243–AD’’ at the
beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of
the proposed AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date
and may amend the proposed AD in
light of those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, 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 proposed AD.
Using the search function of that 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 may
review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or you may visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may 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 DOT
street address stated in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after the Docket
Management System receives them.
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16721-16725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4827]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-20689; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-197-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 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 757 airplanes. The original
NPRM would have required, for certain airplanes, reworking the spar
bonding path and reapplying sealant; and, for certain other airplanes,
testing the electrical bond between the engine fuel feed hose and the
wing front spar and, if applicable, reworking the spar bonding path and
reapplying sealant. The original NPRM also would have required, for all
airplanes, an inspection to ensure the electrical bonding jumper is
installed between the engine fuel feed tube and the adjacent wing
station. The original NPRM resulted from fuel system reviews conducted
by the manufacturer. This action revises the original NPRM by requiring
operators that may have installed an incorrect O-ring to install the
correct part and do a re-test. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM
to prevent arcing or sparking at the interface between the bulkhead
fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar during a
lightning strike, which could provide a possible ignition source for
the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank and result in a fuel tank
explosion.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by May 1,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this supplemental NPRM.
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://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.
[[Page 16722]]
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this
proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Thorson, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425) 917-6508; 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 in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number
``Docket No. FAA-2005-20689; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-197-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 that 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 may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may 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 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 757 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14594). The original NPRM proposed to
require, for certain airplanes, reworking the spar bonding path and
reapplying sealant; and, for certain other airplanes, testing the
electrical bond between the engine fuel feed hose and the wing front
spar and, if applicable, reworking the spar bonding path and reapplying
sealant. The original NPRM also proposed to require, for all airplanes,
an inspection to ensure the electrical bonding jumper is installed
between the engine fuel feed hose and the adjacent wing station.
Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer informed us
that a part number (P/N) for an O-ring installation was identified
incorrectly in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0076 and Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, both dated August 27, 2004. These
service bulletins were referenced as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the required actions in the original
NPRM. This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) will propose to require compliance
with Revision 1 of the service bulletins, which cite the O-ring's P/N
correctly. For Group 1 airplanes on which the installation was done in
accordance with the original issue of the service bulletins, and for
Group 2 airplanes that failed the bonding resistance test done in
accordance with the original NPRM, this SNPRM will propose to require
installing an O-ring with the correct P/N and doing a re-test.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1,
dated October 20, 2005; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077,
Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005. The service bulletins describe
procedures that are essentially the same as those described in the
original NPRM, except the service bulletins, Revision 1, identify the
correct part number for the O-ring. However, the service bulletins
describe additional work for airplanes that incorporated the initial
releases of the service bulletins. The additional work includes
disassembling the coupling for the engine fuel feed tube at the front
spar (left and right wings), and replacing the O-ring that has the
incorrect P/N with a new O-ring with the correct P/N. The additional
work also includes doing a leak test of the re-assembled coupling.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
Comments
We have considered the following comments about the original NPRM.
Request To Extend Compliance Time
The Air Transport Association (ATA), Continental Airlines, United
Airlines, Delta Airlines, U.S. Airways, and American Airlines request
that we extend the proposed compliance time for doing the bonding
resistance test and for inspecting the electrical bonding jumper. The
commenters request that we extend the compliance time from 48 months to
either 60 months or 72 months. The commenters request the extension to
all of the AD actions to be scheduled to coincide with heavy
maintenance intervals when other activities that require entering the
fuel tank are also scheduled. The commenters state that extending the
compliance time would minimize the number of fuel tank entries and also
minimize the manpower requirements for draining the tank and doing
entry procedures. Several commenters note that AD 2004-10-06, amendment
39-13636 (69 FR 28046, May 18, 2004), which is a similar AD for
hydraulic tube bonding in the fuel tank for lightning protection, has a
compliance time of 60 months, which provides an adequate level of
safety. One commenter notes that there have been no large-jet transport
accidents related to lightning strikes or bonding-related hazards since
1977, when the FAA strengthened certification standards for bonding.
The same commenter notes that there have been no lightning-induced fuel
tank events on Boeing Model 757 airplanes.
We partially agree with the commenters. We agree with extending the
compliance time to 60 months because we have assessed these specific
actions on other Boeing airplane models and we have evaluated similar
ADs such as AD 2004-10-06, and AD 2005-04-01, amendment 39-13973 (70 FR
7841, February 16, 2005). In addition, we find that extending the
compliance time will not adversely affect safety. The manufacturer
supports extending the compliance time to 60 months, and Revision 1 of
Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077 include this
revised time. We do not agree with extending the compliance time to 72
months. The commenters that request this extension do not provide a
technical justification; however, operators may request an alternate
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures in
paragraph letter (l) of this proposed AD.
[[Page 16723]]
Request To State that Bonding Jumper Is Attached to a Fuel Tube
The Boeing Company requests that we revise three sections of the
proposed AD in order to correctly identify that the bonding jumper is
attached to a fuel tube mating with a fuel hose end fitting, and not
with the fuel hose. Boeing states that this change will clarify that
the electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed
tube and the adjacent wing section.
We agree. The suggested wording will clarify the proposed AD. We
have changed the ``Summary'' section and paragraph (i) of the proposed
AD as requested. However, we have not changed the ``Relevant Service
Information'' section because that section of the SNPRM does not
contain the same information as the same section of the original NPRM.
Request To Correct Discrepancies in Service Bulletins
Continental Airlines states that the Work Instructions in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077, both dated August
27, 2004, have discrepancies that prevent accomplishing certain
proposed actions. Specifically, the following items are not included in
the alert service bulletins: Removal and installation instructions for
the forward flap track fairing; a statement that a special tool is
required for removing and reinstalling the forward fitting of the fuel
feedline; and a note to clarify that leak tests of the fuel system are
required following rework. Continental states that alternative rework
instructions would have to be approved as AMOCs for each airplane to
comply successfully with the requirements of the proposed AD.
We partially agree. We agree that a note that leak tests of the
fuel system are necessary following rework would clarify the service
bulletin; Boeing has added this note to Revision 1 of Boeing Service
Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077. Also, Boeing verified that a
special tool is not necessary because a standard ``crow's foot'' tool
is readily available that is sufficient to complete the task. In
addition, the instructions for removing and reinstalling the forward
fitting are already included in the service bulletins by reference to
the applicable airplane maintenance manuals (AMM). Boeing can answer
additional questions if the commenter requires further information. We
disagree that it is necessary for us to mandate the changes proposed by
Continental because these changes have to do with the content of the
service bulletins rather than the content of this proposed AD, and they
do not affect the AD action. No changes to the proposed AD are
necessary.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
The ATA, American Airlines, and Delta Airlines request that we
revise the hours estimated to complete the proposed actions. The
commenters state that the estimates do not accurately reflect the
operations required for defueling, access, and other prerequisites for
the proposed actions.
We disagree. The cost estimate discussed in AD rulemaking actions
represents 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. However, Boeing updated the work-hour estimates for the
bonding test and sealant application, and for the bonding test, hose
fitting and spar bonding rework, and sealant application. These changes
are reflected in the Cost Estimate table below.
In addition, after the original NPRM was issued, we reviewed the
figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs
to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline
industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these
calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The costs of
compliance, below, reflect this increase in the specified hourly labor
rate.
Request To Remove Rework Requirement for Certain Conditions
Delta Airlines states that, for certain airplanes, Boeing Alert
Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077 require removing,
cleaning, and re-installing the fuel feedline fitting to ensure an
adequate bond is present for lightning protection. Delta requests that
we revise the proposed AD to require reworking the fitting only if a
preliminary resistance measurement fails. Delta states that the
proposed AD does not take into account installations that may have been
completed per the revised AMM procedures, which are consistent with the
service information.
We disagree. The resistance measurement by itself does not ensure
that an adequate bond is present for lightning protection. The only way
to ensure the presence of an adequate bond capable of carrying the
heavy electrical currents that are caused by an attached lightning
strike is by a rigorous cleaning and assembly process, with an
electrical bonding check as a final measure to ensure proper assembly.
However, interested parties may submit an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures in paragraph letter (l) of this proposed AD, if they can
substantiate the following: That an airplane has a fuel feedline
fitting that is installed in accordance with a procedure equivalent to
the service bulletins referenced in the proposed AD; and that the
current resistance measurement is within the value required by the
service bulletins. No changes to the proposed AD are necessary.
Request To Revise ``Discussion'' Section
The Boeing Company requests that we revise the ``Discussion''
section to be similar to that provided in NPRM Docket No. FAA-2004-
19680 (69 FR 68272, November 24, 2004). Boeing states that the issue
addressed in this proposed AD is similar to that in NPRM Docket No.
FAA-2004-19680 in that it was identified before the SFAR 88 safety
assessment. Boeing states that the ``Discussion'' section does not
reflect this fact.
We disagree. Although the issue was identified before the Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,'' Amendment 21-78, and
subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83) safety assessment, the non-
compliance was identified and included in the Boeing 757 SFAR 88 Safety
Analysis documents. This non-compliance was tracked administratively
and identified as an unsafe condition requiring AD action through the
SFAR 88 process. Therefore, it is considered an SFAR 88-related AD. No
changes to the proposed AD are necessary.
FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the SNPRM
Certain 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 SNPRM.
Difference Between the SNPRM and the Service Bulletins
Although the referenced service bulletins would allow an operator's
equivalent procedures to be used for aircraft maintenance manuals (AMM)
referenced in the service bulletins, this proposed AD would require you
to use the referenced AMMs except as provided in paragraph (k) of this
SNPRM.
Clarification of AMOC Paragraph
We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure
for notifying the principal inspector before using any
[[Page 16724]]
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 1,040 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 700 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The average labor rate is estimated to be $80 per work
hour. Parts would be supplied from operator stock. The following table
provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this
proposed AD.
Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per
Action/airplanes affected Work hours airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hose fitting and spar bonding rework and 11 $880
sealant application (Group 1 airplanes)......
Bonding test and sealant application (Group 2 12 960
airplanes that pass bonding test)............
Bonding test, hose fitting and spar bonding 18 1,440
rework and sealant application (Group 2
airplanes that fail bonding test)............
Replace O-ring for airplanes that incorporated 3 240
original release of the service bulletins....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 and placed it in the AD docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2005-20689; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-
197-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 1,
2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB,
series airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; and Model 757-300
series airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; certificated in any
category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing or sparking
at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel
feed tube and the front spar during a lightning strike, which could
provide a possible ignition source for the fuel vapor inside the
fuel tank and result in a fuel tank explosion.
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.
Service Bulletin References
(f) The term ``service bulletin(s),'' as used in this AD, means
the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins,
as applicable.
(1) For Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes:
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20,
2005.
(2) For Model 757-300 series airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin
757-28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005.
Hose Fitting and Spar Bonding Rework and Sealant Application
(g) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in the service
bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
rework the spar bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel
feed hose and the front spar, and apply sealant to the hose fitting
on the forward and aft side of the front spar and to the fitting and
tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with
the applicable service bulletin.
Bonding Resistance Test
(h) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in the service
bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do
a bonding resistance test between the fuel feed hose and the front
spars of the left and right wings, in accordance with the service
bulletins.
(1) If the test meets required resistance limits, before further
flight, apply sealant to the end fitting of the fuel feed hose on
the aft side of the front spar and to the fitting and tube coupling
on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with the applicable
service bulletin.
(2) If the test does not meet required resistance limits, before
further flight, remove any existing sealant at the front spar;
rework the spar bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel
feed hose and the front spar to meet bonding resistance test
requirements; and apply sealant to the end fitting of the fuel feed
hose on the forward and aft sides of the front spar, and to the
fitting and tube
[[Page 16725]]
coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with the
applicable service bulletin.
Inspection of Electrical Bonding Jumper
(i) For all airplanes as identified in the service bulletins:
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a
general visual inspection and applicable corrective actions to
ensure that an electrical bonding jumper is installed between the
engine fuel feed tube and the adjacent wing station 285.65 rib in
the left and right wing fuel tanks, in accordance with the service
bulletins.
Replacement of O-Ring and Test
(j) For airplanes on which the actions in paragraphs (g) or
(h)(2) of this AD were done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, dated August 27, 2004; and Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, dated August 27, 2004; as
applicable: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the O-ring, part number (P/N) MS29513-330 with a new O-ring,
P/N MS29513-328, and do a leak test before further flight after
reassembly. Do all actions in accordance with Part B of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
Exception to Accomplishment Instructions in Service Bulletins
(k) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1,
and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, both dated
October 20, 2005, permit operator's equivalent procedures (OEP),
this AD would require you to use the referenced Airplane Maintenance
Manuals, except that operators may use their own FAA-approved OEPs
to drain the left and right engine fuel tubes, to drain and
ventilate the fuel tanks, and to enter the fuel tanks.
Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Original Issues of Service
Bulletins
(l) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, and Boeing
Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, both dated August 24, 2004, are
acceptable for compliance only with the requirements of paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) 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 March 24, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-4827 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P