Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 Series Airplanes, 29092-29096 [E6-7633]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29092
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Actions
Compliance
Procedures
(ii) Re-identify old P/N 130–530025–4,
right forward facing or left aft facing seat
assembly, to the new P/N 130–530999–
0002.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN:
Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita ACO, Airframe and Services Branch,
ACE–118W, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4124;
facsimile: (316) 946–4107, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of
compliance for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Related Information
(g) To get copies of the documents
referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon
Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita,
Kansas 67201; telephone: (800) 625–7043. To
view the AD docket, go to the Docket
Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington,
DC, or on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov.
The docket number is Docket No. FAA–
2005–22103; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–
42–AD.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May
15, 2006.
Sandra J. Campbell,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–7636 Filed 5–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–21968; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–077–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 757–200, –200CB, and –300
Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 757–200,
–200CB, and –300 series airplanes. The
original NPRM would have required
repetitive detailed inspections for
proper functioning of the girt bar leaf
springs for the escape slides to ensure
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
the leaf springs retain the sliders and
the required 0.37-inch minimum
engagement between the sliders and
floor fittings is achieved at passenger
doors 1, 2, and 4, and corrective actions
if necessary. The original NPRM
resulted from a report that the escape
slides failed to deploy correctly during
an operator’s tests of the escape slides.
This action revises the original NPRM
by stating that this proposed AD would
not include procedures from the
airplane maintenance manuals and
component maintenance manuals that
allow bending the girt bar retention
springs. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM to prevent escape
slides from disengaging from the
airplane during deployment or in use,
which could result in injuries to
passengers or flightcrew.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by June 13,
2006.
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.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207, for service
information identified in this proposed
AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental
Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055–4056; telephone
(425) 917–6429; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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–
2005–21968; Directorate Identifier
2005–NM–077–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–
200, –200CB, and –300 series airplanes.
The original NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on July 27, 2005
(70 FR 43343). The original NPRM
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
proposed to require repetitive detailed
inspections for proper functioning of the
girt bar leaf springs for the escape slides
at passenger doors 1, 2, and 4, and
corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We have considered the following
comments on the original NPRM.
Support for the Original NPRM
The Air Transport Association (ATA),
on behalf of seven of its member airlines
(America West, American, Continental,
Delta, Northwest, and United), and
Brittania Airways agree with the intent
of the original NPRM.
Request To Address Bending of
Retention Spring
The Air Transport Association (ATA)
on behalf of its members Continental
and United, noted an inconsistency
with the airplane maintenance manuals
(AMMs) and component maintenance
manuals (CMMs) referenced in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletins 757–
52–0085 and 757–52–0086, both dated
March 24, 2005. These service bulletins
were referenced as the appropriate
source of service information for
accomplishing the proposed actions.
Continental and United state that the
AMMs and CMMs allow bending of the
retention spring, which is not the intent
of the proposed AD, and suggest that we
state the intent of the AD clearly. They
also suggest that the proposed AD note
this difference with the AMMs.
We agree with the requests to clarify
the proposal by stating that bending of
the retention spring is not allowed.
Since this change expands the scope of
the original NPRM, we have determined
that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Request To Revise Summary
Boeing requests that we revise the
‘‘Summary’’ paragraph to clarify the
inspection requirements. Boeing
suggests inserting the following words:
‘‘* * * to ensure the leaf springs retain
the sliders and the required 0.37-inch
minimum engagement between the
sliders and the floor fittings is achieved
* * *.’’
We agree. The words Boeing suggests
add detail that clarifies the summary.
We have revised the ‘‘Summary’’
paragraph of this supplemental NPRM
to include the suggested words.
Request To Correct Errors in
‘‘Differences’’ Paragraph and in
Paragraph (g)
Boeing also requests that we revise
the ‘‘Differences Between the Proposed
AD and the Service Bulletin’’ paragraph
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
to correct errors in the text. Boeing
specifically requests that we add
‘‘/section’’ to the following sentence and
revise the reference to the actions in
Part 1 to the actions in Part 2. Boeing
suggests the following wording:
‘‘However, for actions in Part 2—
‘Inspection’ of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin, this proposed AD would
require operators to accomplish the
actions in accordance with the
applicable chapter/section of the AMM
or CMM specified in the applicable
service bulletin.’’ Boeing notes that
these changes revise the Part reference
to agree with the reference in the special
attention service bulletins; and clarify
the reference to the AMM and CMM.
Boeing also states that paragraph (g) of
the original NPRM incorrectly
references Part 1 of the service bulletin
rather than Part 2. Boeing requests that
we clarify paragraph (g) by adding the
words ‘‘applicable’’ and ‘‘/section’’
when referring to the 757 AMM or
CMM. Boeing states that making these
changes would revise the supplemental
NPRM to agree with the Part number in
the service bulletin, and also clarify the
subject of the AMM or CMM.
We agree that the reference to Part 1
in paragraph (g) of the original NPRM is
incorrect. We also agree that adding the
requested words would clarify
paragraph (g) of the reasons stated. We
have revised paragraph (g) of the
supplemental NPRM to refer to Part 2 of
the service bulletin, and to add the
requested words. The changes also
correct and clarify the ‘‘Differences’’
paragraph. We have revised the subject
paragraph as requested.
Request for Permanent Design
Modification
Northwest Airlines notes that it has
had difficulty in complying with the
engagement dimension required by
paragraph (f) of the original NPRM. The
difficulty continued after Northwest
coordinated process improvements with
Boeing, and after it installed new girt
bar parts and assemblies. Northwest
proposes that the unsafe condition be
addressed by a permanent design
modification to the girt bars, or by a
redesign of the retention springs.
Northwest states that without a design
change, operators can expect a high rate
of girt bar replacements.
We partially agree. We agree that the
best solution to this unsafe condition is
a design change that would also serve as
a terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. However, in lieu of a
permanent design modification
proposed by either Boeing or an
airplane operator, we have determined
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29093
that repetitive inspections for adequate
retention force of the leaf spring, and for
slider engagement dimension are
necessary. We will continue to work
with Boeing and the airplane operators
to identify a permanent solution. We
have also added an ‘‘Interim Action’’
paragraph to this supplemental NPRM
to note that we do not consider the
proposed actions to be a permanent
solution.
Request To Include Terminating Action
for Repetitive Inspections
The ATA, on behalf of its members
Delta and United, requests that we
evaluate Boeing Service Bulletin 757–
52–0087 as a terminating action for the
proposed inspections. Delta also
suggests that the service bulletin should
be evaluated as an action that would
extend the repetitive inspection
intervals. Delta notes that this service
bulletin is currently pending and has
not been released. This pending service
bulletin would provide procedures for
replacing the current leaf spring with a
stronger leaf spring.
We have evaluated the procedures in
pending Boeing Service Bulletin 757–
52–0087. However, both we and Boeing
concluded that replacing the current
leaf spring with a stronger leaf spring in
accordance with the pending service
bulletin does not represent a final
design solution for the unsafe condition
in this supplemental NPRM. The actions
in this pending service bulletin, based
on current data, also do not provide
justification for extending the repetitive
interval. As noted in ‘‘Request for
Permanent Design Modification’’ above,
we do not consider the actions proposed
in this supplemental NPRM to be a
permanent solution. We have not
changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard. However, if a new service
bulletin is issued and approved, and it
addresses the unsafe condition,
operators may request an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures in
paragraph (h) of this proposed AD.
Request To Revise Repetitive Inspection
Interval
The ATA, on behalf of America West
and Continental, and Brittania Airways
request that we revise the repetitive
inspection interval. America West states
that it would be difficult to comply with
the repetitive interval of ‘‘on or after
each maintenance task.’’ America West
notes that the required maintenance
records and the inability to positively
account for every maintenance task
would result in the inability to
demonstrate compliance with the
original NPRM. Brittania believes that it
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
29094
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
is punitive to require certification of AD
compliance every time ‘‘on or after each
maintenance task where removal of and
installation of the girt bar is necessary.’’
Brittania states that such matters are
best addressed by the maintenance
manual to which responsible operators
adhere. Continental does not object to
doing the initial inspection within 24
months after the effective date of the
forthcoming AD. However, Continental
notes that it currently removes the door
slides and performs an operational
check of the girt bar every 36 months.
Continental states that these two
maintenance planning document (MPD)
driven actions are independent of one
another and typically do not coincide.
Consequently, the actual interval can
vary from 1 month to 36 months.
Continental states that introducing the
third program specified in the original
NPRM, at 24-month intervals, would
inevitably become a stand-alone door
maintenance event. Continental notes
that realizing the full 24-month
repetitive inspection interval is unlikely
due to the two MPD programs. Further,
Continental believes that these girt bar
inspection requirements are ideally
suited as a base maintenance activity
and not as a line maintenance activity.
We disagree with the request to revise
the repetitive inspection interval. We
acknowledge that a repetitive inspection
is not the optimum solution to the
unsafe condition addressed by this
supplemental NPRM. In lieu of an
alternative proposal, we agree with
Boeing’s recommendation to rely on
detailed inspections until a permanent
solution is developed. In developing an
appropriate repetitive interval for this
supplemental NPRM, we considered
safety issues as well as the
recommendations of the manufacturer,
and the practical aspect of
accomplishing the required inspection
within an interval of time that
corresponds to the normal maintenance
schedules of most affected operators.
However, maintenance programs vary
from operator to operator and may be
assessed individually as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) for the
actions in this supplemental NPRM. In
addition, the specific operator
maintenance programs may qualify as
an acceptable AMOC, but the repetitive
inspection as defined in this
supplemental NPRM is not required by
the Boeing 757 MPD. We encourage all
operators to coordinate their
maintenance programs with the FAA to
ensure compliance with the applicable
requirements and to identify suitable
AMOCs. Operators may request an
AMOC in accordance with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
procedures in paragraph (h) of this
supplemental NPRM. We have not
changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Suggestions for Different Inspection
Methods
The ATA on behalf of American
Airlines, and Brittania suggested more
effective and efficient methods for
conducting the proposed inspections.
American Airlines states that its
inspection method produces more
reliable data from which to make
continued serviceability determinations.
Brittania maintains that its currently
scheduled maintenance tasks nullify the
requirement to adopt the proposed
inspections.
We welcome suggestions that improve
airplane safety and that also support
operational requirements. To this end,
paragraph (h) of this supplemental
NPRM authorizes the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification office, FAA to
approve AMOCs. Operators may request
AMOCs for inspection methods in
accordance with the procedures in that
paragraph. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Revise Paragraph (e)
Boeing requests that we revise
paragraph (e) of the original NPRM to
delete the phrase, ‘‘unless the actions
have already been done.’’ Boeing states
that operators still have to comply with
the detailed inspection and corrective
actions within 24 months after the
effective date of the proposed AD and
repeat the inspections at the specified
interval.
We disagree. The intent of paragraph
(e) is to give credit to operators who
have performed compliant actions
before the effective date of the AD. The
paragraph does not apply to ongoing
actions that are required after the AD
becomes effective. We have not changed
the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (f)
The ATA, on behalf of Delta, requests
that we clarify the language in
paragraph (f) of the original NPRM.
Delta specifically would like
clarification of our intent when we say
‘‘removal and installation.’’ Delta
believes that the intent of this statement
is for the removal and installation of the
girt bar assembly in the slide lanyard.
Delta notes that, as written, the
proposed rule would require the
necessary inspections for the girt bar
removal and installation in the floor
fittings as well as the removal and
installation in the lanyard.
We disagree. The statement as written
refers to only maintenance tasks that
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
involve installation of the girt bar on the
slide assembly. The statement does not
pertain to girt bar slider engagement
with the floor fittings. We have not
changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Suggestions To Revise CMM and AMM
United recommends including in the
service bulletin the instructions from
CMM 25–66–14. Continental requests
that the AMMs be revised to remove the
procedure that allows for bending of the
springs.
We agree that it is best that all
documents related to the AD action be
consistent. However, we cannot revise
manufacturers’ service information. It is
our understanding that Boeing is
revising the CMM. If the revised
information affects the AD action, we
may consider further rulemaking then.
Request To Justify AD Action
Brittania notes that the original NPRM
was raised in response to a single
operator’s experience.
We infer that Brittania believes the
proposed AD is not justified. We
disagree that the action is not justified
and that it results from a single
operator’s experience. The ‘‘Summary’’
paragraph states that the original NPRM
resulted from a report that the escape
slides failed to deploy correctly during
an operator’s tests of the escape slides.
That report prompted an FAA
evaluation of the current Boeing 757 girt
bar design, and of related service
difficulties reported fleet-wide. We have
not changed the supplemental NPRM in
this regard.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
The ATA, on behalf of American
Airlines, Delta, and Northwest; and
Boeing suggest changes to the number of
work-hours stated to accomplish the
inspection. American notes that the
current estimate is appropriate only for
personnel experienced with this
proposed inspection. The other
operators and Boeing note that the
estimated cost in the service bulletin is
6.3 work-hours per airplane.
We disagree. We recognize that the
operators and Boeing have experience
with the required inspection and
maintenance task and agree with the
overall work-hour estimate. However,
the cost figures discussed in AD
rulemaking actions represent only the
time necessary to perform the specific
actions actually required by the AD.
These figures typically do not include
incidental costs, such as the time
required to gain access and close up,
planning time, or time necessitated by
other administrative actions. The 2
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
work-hour estimate is based on the task
breakdown provided in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletins 757–52–
0085 and 757–52–0086, and is
consistent with the work breakdowns
submitted by the commenters. We have
not changed the supplemental NPRM in
this regard.
Clarification of Alternative Method of
Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph
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
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 supplemental
NPRM.
Differences Between the Supplemental
NPRM and the Service Bulletins
Although the AMMs referenced in the
service bulletins allow for bending of
the girt bar retention springs, this
supplemental NPRM would not allow
any procedure that allows bending of
the girt bar retention springs.
The service bulletins specify that
operators may accomplish certain
actions in accordance with the Boeing
757 AMM, the Boeing 757 CMM, or an
‘‘approved equivalent procedure.’’
However, for actions in Part 2—
‘‘Inspection’’ of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin, this proposed AD would
require operators to accomplish the
actions in accordance with the
applicable chapter/section of the AMM
or CMM specified in the applicable
service bulletin. An ‘‘approved
equivalent procedure’’ may be used only
if it is approved as an alternative
method of compliance in accordance
with paragraph (h) of this supplemental
NPRM.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Interim Action
We consider this proposed AD
interim action. If final action is later
identified, we may consider further
rulemaking then.
Explanation of Change to Costs of
Compliance
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 cost impact
information, below, reflects this
increase in the specified hourly labor
rate.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 944 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
This supplemental NPRM would affect
about 632 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
proposed inspection would take about 2
work hours per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of
the supplemental NPRM for U.S.
operators is $101,120, or $160 per
airplane, per inspection cycle.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29095
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.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–21968;
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–077–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by June 13, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757–
200 and –200CB series airplanes, certificated
in any category, as identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–52–
0085, dated March 24, 2005; and Boeing
Model 757–300 series airplanes, certificated
in any category, as identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–52–
0086, dated March 24, 2005.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report that the
escape slides failed to deploy correctly
during an operator’s tests of the escape
slides. We are issuing this AD to prevent
escape slides from disengaging from the
airplane during deployment or in use, which
could result in injuries to passengers or
flightcrew.
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.
Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions
(f) Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for
inadequate spring retention force and
inadequate girt bar slider dimensions of the
girt bar leaf springs for the escape slides at
passenger doors 1, 2, and 4; and do any
applicable corrective actions before further
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
29096
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
flight. Do all the actions in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service bulletin in paragraph (f)(1)
or (f)(2) of this AD, except as provided by
paragraph (g) of this AD. Where the airplane
maintenance manuals (AMMs) and
component maintenance manuals (CMMs)
referenced by the applicable service bulletin
include procedures that allow bending the
girt bar retention spring, this AD does not
allow that procedure. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24
months, or after each maintenance task
where removal of and installation of the girt
bar is necessary, whichever occurs earlier.
(1) For Boeing Model 757–200 and –200CB
series airplanes: Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757–52–0085, dated March
24, 2005.
(2) For Boeing Model 757–300 series
airplanes: Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757–52–0086, dated March 24, 2005.
Equivalent Procedures
(g) Where Part 2—‘‘Inspection’’ of the
applicable service bulletin in paragraph (f)(1)
or (f)(2) of this AD specifies that actions may
be accomplished in accordance with an
‘‘approved equivalent procedure’’: The
corrective actions must be accomplished in
accordance with the applicable chapter/
section of the Boeing 757 AMM or Boeing
757 CMM specified in the applicable service
bulletin. Where the AMMs and CMMs
include procedures that allow bending the
girt bar retention spring, this AD does not
allow that procedure.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (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) 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 11,
2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–7633 Filed 5–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
15 CFR Part 922
[Docket No. 060222048–6048–01]
RIN 0648–AT17
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary Regulations
National Marine Sanctuary
Program (NMSP), National Ocean
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public
availability of draft management plan/
draft environmental impact statement.
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
proposing a revised management plan
and a revised set of regulations for the
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary (CINMS or Sanctuary). The
proposed set of regulations includes
both new regulations as well as changes
to existing regulations. Proposed new
regulations include prohibitions on:
Exploring for, developing, or producing
minerals within the Sanctuary;
abandoning matter on or in Sanctuary
submerged lands; taking marine
mammals, seabirds, or sea turtles within
or above the Sanctuary; possessing
within the Sanctuary any marine
mammal, sea turtle, or seabird; marking,
defacing, damaging, moving, removing,
or tampering with Sanctuary signs,
monuments, boundary markers, or
similar items; introducing or otherwise
releasing from within or into the
Sanctuary an introduced species; and
operating motorized personal watercraft
within waters of the Channel Islands
National Park. There are also proposed
changes to help clarify or refine existing
regulations.
The NMSP is also proposing certain
revisions to the Sanctuary’s Designation
Document. These include proposed
revisions of the Description of the Area
and proposed changes to the Scope of
Regulations, as well as changes to help
clarify, update, and refine other sections
of the Designation Document. No
changes are proposed for the ‘‘Fishing’’
and ‘‘Defense Activities’’ sections
within Article V (Relation to Other
Regulatory Programs) of the Designation
Document.
DATES: NOAA is publishing this
proposed rule to provide notice to the
public and invite advice,
recommendations, information, and
other comments from interested parties
on the proposed rule and Draft
Management Plan/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DMP/DEIS). Public
hearings will be held as detailed below:
(1) Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at the
Sheraton Four Points hotel, San
Buenaventura Ballroom, 1050 Schooner
Drive, in Ventura, California.
(2) Thursday, June 29, 2006, at the
Earl Warren Showgrounds, Warren Hall,
3400 Calle Real Street, in Santa Barbara,
California.
Comments will be considered if
received by July 21, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Copies of the DMP/DEIS are
available at Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way,
Suite 150, Santa Barbara, California and
on the web at https://
channelislands.noaa.gov. You may
submit comments, identified by RIN
0648–AT17, by any of the following
methods:
• E-mail: cinms.mgtplan@noaa.gov.
• Fax: (805) 568–1582.
• Mail: Chris Mobley,
Superintendent, Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor
Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara,
California, 93109.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113
Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara,
California, 93109.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Murray at (805) 884–1464 or
michael.murray@noaa.gov.
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
Pursuant to section 304(e) of the
NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. the
National Marine Sanctuary Program
(NMSP) conducted a review of the
management plan and regulations for
the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary (CINMS or Sanctuary),
located off the coast of southern
California. The review has resulted in a
proposed new management plan for the
Sanctuary, some proposed changes to
existing regulations, and some proposed
new regulations. The proposed new
regulations include prohibitions on:
• Exploring for, developing, or
producing minerals within the
Sanctuary, except producing byproducts incidental to authorized
hydrocarbon production;
• Abandoning any structure, material,
or other matter on or in the submerged
lands of the Sanctuary;
• Taking any marine mammal, sea
turtle, or seabird within or above the
Sanctuary, except as expressly
authorized by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, as amended, (MMPA),
16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., Endangered
Species Act, as amended, (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq., Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, as amended, (MBTA), 16
U.S.C. 703 et seq., or any regulation, as
amended, promulgated under the
MMPA, ESA, or MBTA.
• Possessing within the Sanctuary
(regardless of where taken from, moved,
or removed from) any marine mammal,
sea turtle, or seabird, except as
expressly authorized by the MMPA,
ESA, MBTA, or any regulation, as
amended, promulgated under the
MMPA, ESA, or MBTA;
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29092-29096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7633]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-21968; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-077-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300
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 757-200, -200CB, and -300
series airplanes. The original NPRM would have required repetitive
detailed inspections for proper functioning of the girt bar leaf
springs for the escape slides to ensure the leaf springs retain the
sliders and the required 0.37-inch minimum engagement between the
sliders and floor fittings is achieved at passenger doors 1, 2, and 4,
and corrective actions if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from a
report that the escape slides failed to deploy correctly during an
operator's tests of the escape slides. This action revises the original
NPRM by stating that this proposed AD would not include procedures from
the airplane maintenance manuals and component maintenance manuals that
allow bending the girt bar retention springs. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM to prevent escape slides from disengaging from the
airplane during deployment or in use, which could result in injuries to
passengers or flightcrew.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by June 13,
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.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this
proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6429; 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-2005-21968; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-077-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 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. The original NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43343). The
original NPRM
[[Page 29093]]
proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections for proper
functioning of the girt bar leaf springs for the escape slides at
passenger doors 1, 2, and 4, and corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM.
Support for the Original NPRM
The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of seven of its
member airlines (America West, American, Continental, Delta, Northwest,
and United), and Brittania Airways agree with the intent of the
original NPRM.
Request To Address Bending of Retention Spring
The Air Transport Association (ATA) on behalf of its members
Continental and United, noted an inconsistency with the airplane
maintenance manuals (AMMs) and component maintenance manuals (CMMs)
referenced in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-52-0085
and 757-52-0086, both dated March 24, 2005. These service bulletins
were referenced as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the proposed actions. Continental and United state that
the AMMs and CMMs allow bending of the retention spring, which is not
the intent of the proposed AD, and suggest that we state the intent of
the AD clearly. They also suggest that the proposed AD note this
difference with the AMMs.
We agree with the requests to clarify the proposal by stating that
bending of the retention spring is not allowed. Since this change
expands the scope of the original NPRM, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period.
Request To Revise Summary
Boeing requests that we revise the ``Summary'' paragraph to clarify
the inspection requirements. Boeing suggests inserting the following
words: ``* * * to ensure the leaf springs retain the sliders and the
required 0.37-inch minimum engagement between the sliders and the floor
fittings is achieved * * *.''
We agree. The words Boeing suggests add detail that clarifies the
summary. We have revised the ``Summary'' paragraph of this supplemental
NPRM to include the suggested words.
Request To Correct Errors in ``Differences'' Paragraph and in Paragraph
(g)
Boeing also requests that we revise the ``Differences Between the
Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin'' paragraph to correct errors in
the text. Boeing specifically requests that we add ``/section'' to the
following sentence and revise the reference to the actions in Part 1 to
the actions in Part 2. Boeing suggests the following wording:
``However, for actions in Part 2--`Inspection' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service bulletin, this proposed AD would
require operators to accomplish the actions in accordance with the
applicable chapter/section of the AMM or CMM specified in the
applicable service bulletin.'' Boeing notes that these changes revise
the Part reference to agree with the reference in the special attention
service bulletins; and clarify the reference to the AMM and CMM.
Boeing also states that paragraph (g) of the original NPRM
incorrectly references Part 1 of the service bulletin rather than Part
2. Boeing requests that we clarify paragraph (g) by adding the words
``applicable'' and ``/section'' when referring to the 757 AMM or CMM.
Boeing states that making these changes would revise the supplemental
NPRM to agree with the Part number in the service bulletin, and also
clarify the subject of the AMM or CMM.
We agree that the reference to Part 1 in paragraph (g) of the
original NPRM is incorrect. We also agree that adding the requested
words would clarify paragraph (g) of the reasons stated. We have
revised paragraph (g) of the supplemental NPRM to refer to Part 2 of
the service bulletin, and to add the requested words. The changes also
correct and clarify the ``Differences'' paragraph. We have revised the
subject paragraph as requested.
Request for Permanent Design Modification
Northwest Airlines notes that it has had difficulty in complying
with the engagement dimension required by paragraph (f) of the original
NPRM. The difficulty continued after Northwest coordinated process
improvements with Boeing, and after it installed new girt bar parts and
assemblies. Northwest proposes that the unsafe condition be addressed
by a permanent design modification to the girt bars, or by a redesign
of the retention springs. Northwest states that without a design
change, operators can expect a high rate of girt bar replacements.
We partially agree. We agree that the best solution to this unsafe
condition is a design change that would also serve as a terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. However, in lieu of a permanent
design modification proposed by either Boeing or an airplane operator,
we have determined that repetitive inspections for adequate retention
force of the leaf spring, and for slider engagement dimension are
necessary. We will continue to work with Boeing and the airplane
operators to identify a permanent solution. We have also added an
``Interim Action'' paragraph to this supplemental NPRM to note that we
do not consider the proposed actions to be a permanent solution.
Request To Include Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections
The ATA, on behalf of its members Delta and United, requests that
we evaluate Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0087 as a terminating action
for the proposed inspections. Delta also suggests that the service
bulletin should be evaluated as an action that would extend the
repetitive inspection intervals. Delta notes that this service bulletin
is currently pending and has not been released. This pending service
bulletin would provide procedures for replacing the current leaf spring
with a stronger leaf spring.
We have evaluated the procedures in pending Boeing Service Bulletin
757-52-0087. However, both we and Boeing concluded that replacing the
current leaf spring with a stronger leaf spring in accordance with the
pending service bulletin does not represent a final design solution for
the unsafe condition in this supplemental NPRM. The actions in this
pending service bulletin, based on current data, also do not provide
justification for extending the repetitive interval. As noted in
``Request for Permanent Design Modification'' above, we do not consider
the actions proposed in this supplemental NPRM to be a permanent
solution. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
However, if a new service bulletin is issued and approved, and it
addresses the unsafe condition, operators may request an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures in
paragraph (h) of this proposed AD.
Request To Revise Repetitive Inspection Interval
The ATA, on behalf of America West and Continental, and Brittania
Airways request that we revise the repetitive inspection interval.
America West states that it would be difficult to comply with the
repetitive interval of ``on or after each maintenance task.'' America
West notes that the required maintenance records and the inability to
positively account for every maintenance task would result in the
inability to demonstrate compliance with the original NPRM. Brittania
believes that it
[[Page 29094]]
is punitive to require certification of AD compliance every time ``on
or after each maintenance task where removal of and installation of the
girt bar is necessary.'' Brittania states that such matters are best
addressed by the maintenance manual to which responsible operators
adhere. Continental does not object to doing the initial inspection
within 24 months after the effective date of the forthcoming AD.
However, Continental notes that it currently removes the door slides
and performs an operational check of the girt bar every 36 months.
Continental states that these two maintenance planning document (MPD)
driven actions are independent of one another and typically do not
coincide. Consequently, the actual interval can vary from 1 month to 36
months. Continental states that introducing the third program specified
in the original NPRM, at 24-month intervals, would inevitably become a
stand-alone door maintenance event. Continental notes that realizing
the full 24-month repetitive inspection interval is unlikely due to the
two MPD programs. Further, Continental believes that these girt bar
inspection requirements are ideally suited as a base maintenance
activity and not as a line maintenance activity.
We disagree with the request to revise the repetitive inspection
interval. We acknowledge that a repetitive inspection is not the
optimum solution to the unsafe condition addressed by this supplemental
NPRM. In lieu of an alternative proposal, we agree with Boeing's
recommendation to rely on detailed inspections until a permanent
solution is developed. In developing an appropriate repetitive interval
for this supplemental NPRM, we considered safety issues as well as the
recommendations of the manufacturer, and the practical aspect of
accomplishing the required inspection within an interval of time that
corresponds to the normal maintenance schedules of most affected
operators. However, maintenance programs vary from operator to operator
and may be assessed individually as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) for the actions in this supplemental NPRM. In addition, the
specific operator maintenance programs may qualify as an acceptable
AMOC, but the repetitive inspection as defined in this supplemental
NPRM is not required by the Boeing 757 MPD. We encourage all operators
to coordinate their maintenance programs with the FAA to ensure
compliance with the applicable requirements and to identify suitable
AMOCs. Operators may request an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
in paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Suggestions for Different Inspection Methods
The ATA on behalf of American Airlines, and Brittania suggested
more effective and efficient methods for conducting the proposed
inspections. American Airlines states that its inspection method
produces more reliable data from which to make continued serviceability
determinations. Brittania maintains that its currently scheduled
maintenance tasks nullify the requirement to adopt the proposed
inspections.
We welcome suggestions that improve airplane safety and that also
support operational requirements. To this end, paragraph (h) of this
supplemental NPRM authorizes the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification office, FAA to approve AMOCs. Operators may request AMOCs
for inspection methods in accordance with the procedures in that
paragraph. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Revise Paragraph (e)
Boeing requests that we revise paragraph (e) of the original NPRM
to delete the phrase, ``unless the actions have already been done.''
Boeing states that operators still have to comply with the detailed
inspection and corrective actions within 24 months after the effective
date of the proposed AD and repeat the inspections at the specified
interval.
We disagree. The intent of paragraph (e) is to give credit to
operators who have performed compliant actions before the effective
date of the AD. The paragraph does not apply to ongoing actions that
are required after the AD becomes effective. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (f)
The ATA, on behalf of Delta, requests that we clarify the language
in paragraph (f) of the original NPRM. Delta specifically would like
clarification of our intent when we say ``removal and installation.''
Delta believes that the intent of this statement is for the removal and
installation of the girt bar assembly in the slide lanyard. Delta notes
that, as written, the proposed rule would require the necessary
inspections for the girt bar removal and installation in the floor
fittings as well as the removal and installation in the lanyard.
We disagree. The statement as written refers to only maintenance
tasks that involve installation of the girt bar on the slide assembly.
The statement does not pertain to girt bar slider engagement with the
floor fittings. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Suggestions To Revise CMM and AMM
United recommends including in the service bulletin the
instructions from CMM 25-66-14. Continental requests that the AMMs be
revised to remove the procedure that allows for bending of the springs.
We agree that it is best that all documents related to the AD
action be consistent. However, we cannot revise manufacturers' service
information. It is our understanding that Boeing is revising the CMM.
If the revised information affects the AD action, we may consider
further rulemaking then.
Request To Justify AD Action
Brittania notes that the original NPRM was raised in response to a
single operator's experience.
We infer that Brittania believes the proposed AD is not justified.
We disagree that the action is not justified and that it results from a
single operator's experience. The ``Summary'' paragraph states that the
original NPRM resulted from a report that the escape slides failed to
deploy correctly during an operator's tests of the escape slides. That
report prompted an FAA evaluation of the current Boeing 757 girt bar
design, and of related service difficulties reported fleet-wide. We
have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
The ATA, on behalf of American Airlines, Delta, and Northwest; and
Boeing suggest changes to the number of work-hours stated to accomplish
the inspection. American notes that the current estimate is appropriate
only for personnel experienced with this proposed inspection. The other
operators and Boeing note that the estimated cost in the service
bulletin is 6.3 work-hours per airplane.
We disagree. We recognize that the operators and Boeing have
experience with the required inspection and maintenance task and agree
with the overall work-hour estimate. However, the cost figures
discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to
perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions. The 2
[[Page 29095]]
work-hour estimate is based on the task breakdown provided in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-52-0085 and 757-52-0086, and is
consistent with the work breakdowns submitted by the commenters. We
have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph
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
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 supplemental NPRM.
Differences Between the Supplemental NPRM and the Service Bulletins
Although the AMMs referenced in the service bulletins allow for
bending of the girt bar retention springs, this supplemental NPRM would
not allow any procedure that allows bending of the girt bar retention
springs.
The service bulletins specify that operators may accomplish certain
actions in accordance with the Boeing 757 AMM, the Boeing 757 CMM, or
an ``approved equivalent procedure.'' However, for actions in Part 2--
``Inspection'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service bulletin, this proposed AD would require operators to
accomplish the actions in accordance with the applicable chapter/
section of the AMM or CMM specified in the applicable service bulletin.
An ``approved equivalent procedure'' may be used only if it is approved
as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (h)
of this supplemental NPRM.
Interim Action
We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is
later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then.
Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance
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 cost impact information,
below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 944 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This supplemental NPRM would affect about 632
airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 2
work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the supplemental NPRM for
U.S. operators is $101,120, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
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-2005-21968; Directorate Identifier 2005-
NM-077-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 13,
2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200 and -200CB series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0085, dated March 24,
2005; and Boeing Model 757-300 series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
757-52-0086, dated March 24, 2005.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report that the escape slides failed
to deploy correctly during an operator's tests of the escape slides.
We are issuing this AD to prevent escape slides from disengaging
from the airplane during deployment or in use, which could result in
injuries to passengers or flightcrew.
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.
Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions
(f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection for inadequate spring retention force and
inadequate girt bar slider dimensions of the girt bar leaf springs
for the escape slides at passenger doors 1, 2, and 4; and do any
applicable corrective actions before further
[[Page 29096]]
flight. Do all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service bulletin in paragraph (f)(1)
or (f)(2) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this
AD. Where the airplane maintenance manuals (AMMs) and component
maintenance manuals (CMMs) referenced by the applicable service
bulletin include procedures that allow bending the girt bar
retention spring, this AD does not allow that procedure. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months, or after
each maintenance task where removal of and installation of the girt
bar is necessary, whichever occurs earlier.
(1) For Boeing Model 757-200 and -200CB series airplanes: Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0085, dated March 24,
2005.
(2) For Boeing Model 757-300 series airplanes: Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0086, dated March 24, 2005.
Equivalent Procedures
(g) Where Part 2--``Inspection'' of the applicable service
bulletin in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD specifies that
actions may be accomplished in accordance with an ``approved
equivalent procedure'': The corrective actions must be accomplished
in accordance with the applicable chapter/section of the Boeing 757
AMM or Boeing 757 CMM specified in the applicable service bulletin.
Where the AMMs and CMMs include procedures that allow bending the
girt bar retention spring, this AD does not allow that procedure.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (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) 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 May 11, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-7633 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
