Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, 30275-30278 [06-4845]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30275-30278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4845]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2005-20732; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-278-AD; 
Amendment 39-14617; AD 2006-11-13]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series 
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD 
requires replacing the battery packs of the emergency power assist 
system (EPAS) of the left and right non-overwing exit doors with new or 
modified battery packs. This AD results from intermittent failures of 
the EPAS battery pack found during testing, which are due to switch 
contamination, cam alignment problems, and inadequate self-test 
capability. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the EPAS, 
which could result in the inability to open the exit door during an 
emergency evacuation.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 30, 2006.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, 
Room PL-401, Washington, DC.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Systems and 
Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
917-6482; fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 
777-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the 
Federal Register on March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16449). That NPRM proposed to 
require replacing the battery packs of the emergency power assist 
system (EPAS) of the left and right non-overwing exit doors with new or 
modified battery packs.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Supportive Comment

    Boeing concurs with the contents of the NPRM.

Request To Include Reporting Requirement/Return Defective Components

    Radiant Power Corporation states that, after working with the 
airplane manufacturer, it identified and tested a replacement switch 
produced by a different manufacturer and incorporated the switch into a 
new design which was approved by the airplane manufacturer. Radiant 
Power Corporation adds that the existing suspect part number (S283W203-
1) is the current airplane manufacturer's part number, and both part 
numbers BPAS10-1 and S283W203-1 are incorporated into each battery pack 
Radiant Power Corporation produces. Radiant Power Corporation has 
replaced 510 (approximately 50 percent) of the defective EPAS battery 
packs identified in the NPRM with these new, improved units; 795 of the 
new units have been delivered to its

[[Page 30276]]

customers with no units returned after delivery due to failure of the 
new switch modification. Radiant Power Corporation adds that the latest 
upgrade of the battery pack meets all the necessary requirements of the 
battery pack that was modified by the airplane manufacturer. Radiant 
Power Corporation asks that information be added to the AD instructing 
operators to notify Radiant Power Corporation of the quantity of 
suspect battery packs found when accomplishing the NPRM on both Group 1 
and 2 airplanes. Radiant Power Corporation states that when it receives 
that information it will then work out the replacement logistics of the 
suspect units within the timeframe specified in the AD.
    We infer that Radiant Power Corporation wants to include a 
reporting requirement asking operators for the information specified; 
we do not agree. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), we look for 
two reasons for including a reporting requirement in our ADs: (1) if 
there's a quality control problem and we need to know the extent of 
that problem; and (2) if we need more information to decide whether 
additional AD action is needed (i.e., the AD is interim action). In 
this case, neither of these reasons are applicable. The PRA requires 
agencies to consider the extent of the paperwork burden that will 
accompany any new rule. The PRA is intended to reduce these burdens by 
requiring agencies not only to analyze the information collection and 
reporting costs they are imposing on the private sector, but to use 
those analyses to minimize the cost. Furthermore, we have determined 
that the design improvements, as implemented by Radiant Power 
Corporation, do not provide adequate test capability to detect 
potential latent failures of the battery pack circuit, and do not 
address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Adequate test 
capability is required to ensure that the EPAS is able to support 
opening the airplane passenger doors during emergency evacuation 
conditions.
    Radiant Power Corporation also asks that any existing defective 
EPAS battery packs be returned to them for warranty repair.
    We do not have the authority to direct operators to return 
defective components to the parts manufacturer; we can only require 
repair or replacement of defective components that are installed on the 
airplane. In light of this, we have made no change to the AD in this 
regard.

Request To Replace Battery Packs on Attrition Basis Only

    United Airlines states that they follow the Maintenance Review 
Board (MRB) process specified in the Boeing 777 MRB, Task 52-091-00, 
which provides procedures to restore the EPAS battery pack at its life 
limit of three years. United Airlines adds that performing the tasks in 
the MRB process successfully identifies and corrects the identified 
unsafe condition (switch contamination, cam alignment problems) found 
in these units. United Airlines notes that following the airplane 
manufacturer's replacement instructions adequately eliminates the 
possibility of experiencing latent failures once the battery pack is in 
service. United Airlines also states that, under the MRB actions, the 
battery packs are opened, inspected, restored, and functionally tested 
after rework using specialized procedures developed by the airplane 
manufacturer. United Airlines adds that, provided operators follow the 
refurbishment procedures specified by the airplane manufacturer, the 
proposed replacement of the battery packs with new units should be made 
on an attrition basis.
    We do not agree. The MRB actions that United Airlines refers to are 
performed every three years and are not adequate to maintain the 
battery pack at the reliability level required to support opening the 
passenger entry door during emergency evacuation conditions. In 
addition, no supporting data was provided identifying the specialized 
procedures used for the rework and testing of the battery packs. 
However, if supporting data are provided, persons may apply for 
approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance 
with the provisions in paragraph (j) of this AD. We have made no change 
to the AD in this regard.

Request To Address Defective Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts

    The Modification and Repair Parts Association (MARPA) asks that the 
NPRM be revised to cover possible defective PMA alternative parts; the 
NPRM provides for replacement of battery packs designated by certain 
part numbers with ``new and improved'' battery packs. MARPA states that 
the NPRM fails to address the possibility that parts approved under 14 
CFR part 21.303(a)--(PMA)--may be installed in lieu of the parts 
mentioned in the airplane manufacturer's service bulletins. MARPA notes 
that there are at least two battery packs that may be installed in lieu 
of the airplane manufacturer's parts; those parts are manufactured by 
the battery manufacturer. MARPA adds that, the PMA parts apparently 
have the battery manufacturer's part number, rather than the airplane 
manufacturer's part numbers in the referenced service bulletins. MARPA 
states that specifying only the OEM part number creates a regulatory 
loophole, which could create safety issues by allowing defective parts 
to remain in service. Therefore, MARPA requests the following: (1) that 
the FAA determine whether the PMA parts contain the same defects as the 
airplane manufacturer's parts, and (2) that the NPRM be modified to 
address the possibility that PMA parts are installed in place of the 
OEM parts specified in the referenced service bulletins.
    In its comment, Radiant Power Corporation agrees with MARPA that 
the PMA and OEM part numbers should be addressed by the NPRM. However, 
this situation does not apply to Radiant Power Corporation because 
their PMA parts include the OEM part number.
    We partially agree with MARPA.
    We agree that, if we know that an unsafe condition also exists in 
PMA parts, the AD should address those parts, as well as the original 
parts. MARPA identified a PMA part that, in this case, is identical to 
the OEM part. The part has received PMA under a licensing agreement 
from the OEM, and is identified by both the OEM and the part 
manufacturer's part number; therefore, the part is subject to the 
requirements of this AD. We also note that both of these part numbers 
are listed in the OEM's airplane maintenance documentation. We are not 
aware of any other parts that have received PMA approval.
    MARPA's remarks are timely in that the Transport Airplane 
Directorate currently is in the process of reviewing this issue as it 
applies to transport category airplanes. We acknowledge that there may 
be other ways of addressing this issue to ensure that unsafe PMA parts 
are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly examined all 
aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and have made a 
final determination, we will consider whether our policy regarding 
addressing PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. We consider that to 
delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined 
that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts 
must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, we have 
made no change to the AD in this regard.

[[Page 30277]]

Request To Consider Broader Aspects of an Identified Problem

    MARPA also suggests that the FAA has largely ceded continuing 
airworthiness problem identification to the airplane manufacturer's. 
MARPA states that service difficulties are reported to the airplane 
manufacturer, who then determines the appropriate corrective action and 
issues a service bulletin; the FAA then takes a reactive role and 
issues an airworthiness directive (AD). MARPA adds that the majority of 
ADs are issued as a result of the service bulletins, which can create 
problems for operators. One of these problems is that airplane 
manufacturers operate in an insular niche where the prevailing view is 
that all their products are the same. MARPA provides an example of the 
service bulletins ignoring the existence of PMAs and that some affected 
products may be modified by installation of PMA parts. This results in 
service requirements that may require modification before being applied 
in the form of an AD. MARPA suggests that the FAA consider this when an 
AD involving a component part that may have a PMA alternative is 
issued.
    Although MARPA's remarks do not specifically request a change to 
this AD, we would like to clarify that we do use service bulletins as 
starting points for our research into the development of an AD, when 
they are available, because of the OEM's expertise and broad knowledge 
of the product. Often, service information may not even be available 
that addresses a particular identified unsafe condition. In all cases, 
we may also consult with other aeronautical experts, specialists, and 
vendors, and we may research databases, reports, testing results, etc., 
to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in an appropriate and 
timely manner. We have made no change to the AD as a result of MARPA's 
remarks in the previous paragraph.

Request To Change Cost Estimate

    American Airlines (AAL) has no objection to accomplishing the 
replacement required by the NPRM, but disagrees with the cost 
estimates. AAL states that it has accomplished the required replacement 
on 35 airplanes, and the labor required is 12 work hours (1.5 hours per 
door) per airplane. AAL adds that the parts cost is $29,061 per 
airplane, for a total cost of $1,300,200 to accomplish the replacement 
on those airplanes.
    We do not agree with AAL's request. Our cost estimate is based on 
information that the manufacturer has provided to us. Also, we point 
out that the cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions 
represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions 
actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include 
incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close 
up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative 
actions. We have made no change to the AD 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.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the available data, including the comments 
noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest 
require the adoption of the rule with the change previously described. 
This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator 
nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 348 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 134 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The replacement takes about 8 work hours per airplane (1 work hour 
per battery pack), at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 
Required parts cost about $29,058 per airplane. Based on these figures, 
the estimated cost of the replacement for U.S. operators is $29,578 per 
airplane.
    For Group 2 airplanes: The optional modification, if accomplished, 
takes about 16 work hours per airplane (2 work hours per battery pack), 
at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost 
about $789 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost is 
$1,829 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to 
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES 
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by 
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2006-11-13 Boeing: Amendment 39-14617. Docket No. FAA-2005-20732; 
Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-278-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective June 30, 2006.

[[Page 30278]]

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series 
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing 
Service Bulletin 777-52-0033, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2003.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD was prompted by intermittent failures of the 
emergency power assist system (EPAS) battery pack found during 
testing, which are due to switch contamination, cam alignment 
problems, and inadequate self-test capability. We are issuing this 
AD to prevent failure of the EPAS, which could result in the 
inability to open the exit door during an emergency evacuation.

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.

Replacement

    (f) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service 
Bulletin 777-52-0033, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2003: Within 24 
months after the effective date of this AD, replace the battery 
packs of the EPAS of the left and right non-overwing exit doors with 
new battery packs by doing all the actions specified in Boeing 
Service Bulletin 777-52-0033, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2003.

Replacement or Modification

    (g) For Group 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service 
Bulletin 777-52-0033, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2003: Within 24 
months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the actions 
specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Replace the battery packs as required by paragraph (f) of 
this AD.
    (2) Modify the battery packs by doing all the actions specified 
in Boeing Component Service Bulletin 285W0955-24-01, dated November 
21, 2002.

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

    (h) Accomplishing the applicable actions required by paragraph 
(f) or (g) of this AD before the effective date of this AD, in 
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-52-
0033, dated November 21, 2002, is considered acceptable for 
compliance with the corresponding actions in this AD. Part number 
(P/N) S906-10207-2 (for a 9-volt alkaline battery), shown in 
Paragraph 2.C.2. of that service bulletin, is not a valid P/N; the 
correct P/N that must be used is P/N S906-10135-8011.

Parts Installation

    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a 
EPAS battery pack, P/N S283W203-1 or P/N 285W0955-101, on any 
airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(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 14 CFR 
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the 
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards 
Certificate Holding District Office.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 777-52-0033, Revision 
1, dated June 12, 2003; and Boeing Component Service Bulletin 
285W0955-24-01, dated November 21, 2002; as applicable; to perform 
the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies 
otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial 
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy 
of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket 
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the 
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability 
of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations
/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2006.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-4845 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P