Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes, 30272-30275 [06-4846]
Download as PDF
30272
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–23818; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–228–AD; Amendment
39–14616; AD 2006–11–12]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 767 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 767 airplanes. This AD
requires repetitive measurements of the
rudder and elevator freeplay, repetitive
lubrication of rudder and elevator
components, and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary. This AD
results from reports of freeplay-induced
vibration of the rudder and the elevator.
The potential for vibration of the control
surface should be avoided because the
point of transition from vibration to
divergent flutter is unknown. We are
issuing this AD to prevent excessive
vibration of the airframe during flight,
which could result in loss of control of
the airplane.
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:
Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055–4056; telephone
(425) 917–6450; 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:42 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 all Boeing Model 767 airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on February 8, 2006
(71 FR 6415). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive measurements of the
rudder and elevator freeplay, repetitive
lubrication of rudder and elevator
components, and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
Request To Revise Initial Compliance
Times
Boeing, the airplane manufacturer,
requests that the initial compliance
times be revised. The commenter
recommends an allowance for the initial
compliance intervals to start at airplane
completion rather than after AD release.
The commenter states that for
airplanes completed after the release of
the AD, the initial compliance time for
the freeplay inspection should be equal
to the repeat interval of 36 months
specified in the NPRM. The commenter
explains that the initial compliance time
of 18 months specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletins 767–
27–0197 and 767–27–0198 (which are
referenced as the appropriate sources of
service information for accomplishing
the proposed actions in the NPRM)
resulted partially from a need to address
airplanes that may not have been
maintained frequently enough and may
have excessive freeplay. However, the
commenter notes that when airplanes
leave its production line, excessive
freeplay is not yet an issue.
Therefore, the commenter suggests
that the compliance time for paragraph
(g) of the NPRM be revised to read
‘‘Within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD, or within 36 months
after the date of issuance of the original
standard certificate of airworthiness or
original export certificate of
airworthiness, whichever occurs later
* * *.’’
The commenter also states that the
initial compliance time for the
lubrication should be equal to the
lowest of the repetitive intervals (9
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
months) specified in the NPRM because
airplanes may be delivered with either
type of grease. The commenter suggests
that the compliance time for paragraph
(i) of the NPRM be revised to read
‘‘Within 9 months after the effective
date of this AD or within 9 months after
the date of issuance of the original
standard certificate of airworthiness or
original export certificate of
airworthiness, whichever occurs later
* * *.’’
The commenter notes that it is
planning to issue Revision 1 of the
referenced service bulletins to address
these changes.
We agree with the commenter to
revise the initial compliance times. We
have determined that extending the
initial compliance times for certain
airplanes, as recommended by the
manufacturer, will not adversely affect
safety. We have revised the compliance
times in paragraphs (g) and (i) of this
AD accordingly.
We acknowledge that the commenter
is planning to issue Revision 1 of the
referenced service bulletins. We may
consider further rulemaking at that time
or we may consider approving Revision
1 of the service bulletins as an
alternative method of compliance
(AMOC).
Request To Revise Applicability of
Repetitive Compliance Times
Boeing requests that the wording of
the applicability for the repetitive
intervals specified in paragraphs (i)(1)
and (i)(2) of the NPRM be revised. The
commenter states that the intent of the
wording in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletins 767–27–0197 and
767–27–0198 was for the longer
compliance time to be allowed only if
BMS 3–33 grease is already in use at the
time the lubrication task is being
accomplished. The commenter states
that an operator should not be allowed
to take credit for planned future use of
BMS 3–33 grease.
The commenter recommends that
paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM be revised
to read ‘‘* * * BMS 3–33 is not already
being used * * *’’ and paragraph (i)(2)
of the NPRM be revised to read ‘‘* * *
BMS 3–33 is already being used * * *’’
We agree with the commenter. For
clarity, we have revised paragraphs
(i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
Request To Allow Maintenance
Planning Document (MPD) Tasks as an
AMOC
ABSA Cargo Airline requests that
certain MPD tasks be considered an
acceptable AMOC for the actions
specified in the NPRM. The commenter
states that Model 767 MPD D622T001,
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Revision August 2005, Items 12–21–04–
3A/–3B, 12–21–06–3A/–3B, and 27–02–
00–6A/–6B, already contain the same
lubrication and freeplay tasks on the
elevator and rudder surfaces as those
specified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 767–27–0197, with a 9month interval for lubrication and a 2C
interval (12,000 flight hours or 36
months) for freeplay check.
We do not agree to allow tasks done
in accordance with the MPD as an
AMOC. Compliance times have to be
based on defined intervals to ensure that
the required action in an AD will be
done within an appropriate timeframe
for safe operation of the airplane. Since
operators’ scheduled maintenance
(letter) checks vary, it is possible that an
operator’s C-check could occur after the
compliance time required in this AD. In
addition, MPD tasks may be revised in
the future and therefore may differ from
the requirements in this AD. However,
paragraph (l) of this AD provides
operators the opportunity to request an
AMOC if data are presented to
substantiate the actions provide an
equivalent level of safety.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Request To Withdraw NPRM
Air Transport Association (ATA), on
behalf of its member American Airlines
(AAL), does not agree with the
provisions of the NPRM or with the use
of an AD to mandate changes to the
maintenance programs.
AAL states that maintenance should
be governed and dictated through the
Maintenance Review Board Report
(MRBR), FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group
(AEG), with program oversight by FAA
Flight Standards, and should not be
required via an AD. AAL also states that
implementation and oversight of an AD
is costly to airlines, especially ADs that
do not contain terminating action. AAL
proposes that the NPRM be withdrawn
and that the maintenance be
implemented through proper channels,
i.e., the MRBR. AAL concludes that
when the FAA does not communicate
well between branches, excessive costs
may be driven into an operator’s budget,
in this case due to additional oversight
required for an AD.
ATA also concludes that comments
by its members indicate that the
provisions of the NPRM would be best
implemented through the existing
maintenance review board. ATA
summarizes its members’ comments as
follows:
• ATA notes that AAL’s comments
illustrate the impact of using an AD
rather than existing programs for
implementing necessary maintenance
changes.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:42 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
• ATA states that Delta Air Lines’
(DAL) comments illustrate inefficient
disparities among the proposed
repetitive intervals. DAL’s comments
are described in the ‘‘Request to Revise
Repetitive Interval’’ paragraph in the
preamble of this AD.
• ATA states that U.S. Airways’
(USA) comments illustrate that there are
alternative streamlined methods for
accomplishing the intent of the NPRM.
USA’s comments are described in the
‘‘Request for an AMOC for the Rudder
Freeplay Inspection’’ paragraph in the
preamble of this AD.
We do not agree with the commenter’s
request to withdraw this AD, or that an
AD is not the proper vehicle for
addressing the identified unsafe
condition. According to the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.1), the
issuance of an AD is based on the
finding that an unsafe condition exists
or is likely to develop in aircraft of a
particular type design. The
responsibilities placed on us by the
Federal Aviation Act do not prohibit us
from making any unsafe condition—
whether resulting from maintenance,
design defect, or otherwise—the proper
subject of an AD. Therefore, regardless
of the cause or the source of an unsafe
condition, we have the authority to
issue an AD when an unsafe condition
is found that is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type
design. We consider issuance of an AD
necessary because ADs are the means to
mandate accomplishment of procedures
and adherence to specific compliance
times.
We acknowledge that some operators
may currently have their own
maintenance programs to address an
unsafe condition. If a program contained
all the requirements of an AD, an
operator would already be in
compliance with the AD, or would be in
a position to obtain approval for an
AMOC with the AD (i.e., to follow the
operator’s current program rather than
revise it to comply with the AD).
However, our obligation to issue the AD
and address an unsafe condition
remains. We have not changed this AD
in this regard. However, if an operator
wishes to request an AMOC, a provision
has been specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD.
Request To Revise Repetitive Interval
DAL requests that the repetitive
lubrication interval for rudder and
elevator components be the same for all
airplanes, regardless of the type of
grease that is used. The commenter
states that it does not have any negative
experiences using non-BMS 3–33
grease, and therefore the 18-month/
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30273
6,000-flight-hour interval is appropriate
for all greases. The commenter contends
that a unified interval reduces the risk
of non-compliance when an airplane
must receive non-routine, nonscheduled servicing. The commenter
also states that if all approved greases
cannot support the 18-month/6,000flight-hour interval, then it requests that
as many greases as possible be added to
the allowable greases for the longer
interval.
We acknowledge the commenter’s
concern; however, we do not agree. The
lubrication is required at intervals not to
exceed the earlier of 3,000 flight hours
or 9 months for airplanes on which BMS
3–33 grease is not used; and the earlier
of 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for
airplanes on which BMS 3–33 grease is
used. The compliance times are
consistent with the manufacturer’s
recommendations. In addition, the
commenter did not provide technical
substantiation allowing the calendar
time to exceed 9 months or 18 months,
depending on the type of grease used.
We have determined that the
compliance times in the AD represent
the maximum interval of time allowable
for the affected airplanes to continue to
safely operate before the actions are
done. However, according to the
provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD,
we may approve requests to adjust the
compliance time if the request includes
data that prove that the new compliance
time would provide an acceptable level
of safety. We have not revised this AD
in this regard.
Request for an AMOC for the Rudder
Freeplay Inspection
USA requests that an AMOC be
included for completing the rudder and
elevator freeplay inspection. The
commenter suggests a method for the
rudder freeplay inspection, which is the
same as the elevator freeplay inspection
and which uses only one measurement.
The commenter states this is an easier
method that will ensure less possibility
of error by completing only one
measurement.
We do not agree with this request.
The commenter did not provide data
substantiating that this alternative
method for the rudder freeplay
inspection would provide an acceptable
level of safety. We have determined that
the inspection must be accomplished
according to the manufacturer’s
procedures. However, an operator may
apply for an AMOC under the
provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD,
if data are submitted to substantiate that
the procedure would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
30274
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data, including the comments
received, and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described
previously. We have determined that
these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
and 423 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
following table provides the estimated
costs for U.S. operators to comply with
this AD. No parts are necessary to
accomplish either action.
There are about 979 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Average
labor rate
per hour
Work hours
Cost per airplane
Number of
U.S.registered
airplanes
Freeplay measurement .............
8
$65
$520, per measurement cycle ..
423
Lubrication .................................
27
$65
$1,755, per lubrication cycle ....
423
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.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:42 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
I
2006–11–12 Boeing: Amendment 39–14616.
Docket No. FAA–2006–23818;
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–228–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective June 30,
2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model
767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series
airplanes, certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of
freeplay-induced vibration of the rudder and
the elevator. The potential for vibration of the
control surface should be avoided because
the point of transition from vibration to
divergent flutter is unknown. We are issuing
this AD to prevent excessive vibration of the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Fleet cost
$219,960, per measurement
cycle.
$742,365, per lubrication cycle.
airframe during flight, which could result in
loss of control of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Service Bulletin References
(f) The term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in
this AD, means the Accomplishment
Instructions of the following service
bulletins, as applicable:
(1) For Model 767–200, –300, and –300F
series airplanes: Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 767–27–0197, dated October
27, 2005; and
(2) For Model 767–400ER series airplanes:
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
767–27–0198, dated October 27, 2005.
Repetitive Measurements
(g) Within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD; or within 36 months since
the date of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of
airworthiness; whichever occurs later:
Measure the rudder and elevator freeplay.
Repeat the measurement thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight hours or
36 months, whichever occurs first. Do all
actions required by this paragraph in
accordance with the applicable service
bulletin.
Related Investigative and Corrective Actions
(h) If any measurement found in paragraph
(g) of this AD exceeds any applicable limit
specified in the service bulletin: Before
further flight, do the applicable related
investigative and corrective actions in
accordance with the applicable service
bulletin.
Repetitive Lubrication
(i) Within 9 months after the effective date
of this AD; or within 9 months since the date
of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of
airworthiness; whichever occurs later:
Lubricate the rudder and elevator
components specified in the service bulletin.
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Repeat the lubrication thereafter at the
applicable interval in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD. Do all actions required by this
paragraph in accordance with the applicable
service bulletin.
(1) For airplanes on which BMS 3–33
grease is not already in use prior to the time
the lubrication task is being accomplished:
At intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight hours
or 9 months, whichever occurs first.
(2) For airplanes on which BMS 3–33
grease is already in use prior to the time the
lubrication task is being accomplished: At
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or
18 months, whichever occurs first.
Concurrent Repetitive Cycles
(j) If a freeplay measurement required by
paragraph (g) of this AD and a lubrication
cycle required by paragraph (i) of this AD are
due at the same time or will be accomplished
during the same maintenance visit, the
freeplay measurement and applicable related
investigative and corrective actions must be
done before the lubrication is accomplished.
No Reporting Required
(k) Although the service bulletins
referenced in this AD specify to submit
certain information to the manufacturer, this
AD does not include that requirement.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(l)(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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(m) You must use Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 767–27–0197, dated October
27, 2005; or Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767–27–0198, dated October 27,
2005; 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:42 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 17,
2006.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06–4846 Filed 5–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
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
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30275
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
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30272-30275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4846]
[[Page 30272]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2006-23818; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-228-AD;
Amendment 39-14616; AD 2006-11-12]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 767 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive measurements of
the rudder and elevator freeplay, repetitive lubrication of rudder and
elevator components, and related investigative/corrective actions if
necessary. This AD results from reports of freeplay-induced vibration
of the rudder and the elevator. The potential for vibration of the
control surface should be avoided because the point of transition from
vibration to divergent flutter is unknown. We are issuing this AD to
prevent excessive vibration of the airframe during flight, which could
result in loss of control of the airplane.
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: Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
917-6450; 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 all Boeing Model 767
airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February
8, 2006 (71 FR 6415). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive
measurements of the rudder and elevator freeplay, repetitive
lubrication of rudder and elevator components, and related
investigative/corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Request To Revise Initial Compliance Times
Boeing, the airplane manufacturer, requests that the initial
compliance times be revised. The commenter recommends an allowance for
the initial compliance intervals to start at airplane completion rather
than after AD release.
The commenter states that for airplanes completed after the release
of the AD, the initial compliance time for the freeplay inspection
should be equal to the repeat interval of 36 months specified in the
NPRM. The commenter explains that the initial compliance time of 18
months specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 767-27-
0197 and 767-27-0198 (which are referenced as the appropriate sources
of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions in the
NPRM) resulted partially from a need to address airplanes that may not
have been maintained frequently enough and may have excessive freeplay.
However, the commenter notes that when airplanes leave its production
line, excessive freeplay is not yet an issue.
Therefore, the commenter suggests that the compliance time for
paragraph (g) of the NPRM be revised to read ``Within 18 months after
the effective date of this AD, or within 36 months after the date of
issuance of the original standard certificate of airworthiness or
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later *
* *.''
The commenter also states that the initial compliance time for the
lubrication should be equal to the lowest of the repetitive intervals
(9 months) specified in the NPRM because airplanes may be delivered
with either type of grease. The commenter suggests that the compliance
time for paragraph (i) of the NPRM be revised to read ``Within 9 months
after the effective date of this AD or within 9 months after the date
of issuance of the original standard certificate of airworthiness or
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later *
* *.''
The commenter notes that it is planning to issue Revision 1 of the
referenced service bulletins to address these changes.
We agree with the commenter to revise the initial compliance times.
We have determined that extending the initial compliance times for
certain airplanes, as recommended by the manufacturer, will not
adversely affect safety. We have revised the compliance times in
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD accordingly.
We acknowledge that the commenter is planning to issue Revision 1
of the referenced service bulletins. We may consider further rulemaking
at that time or we may consider approving Revision 1 of the service
bulletins as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
Request To Revise Applicability of Repetitive Compliance Times
Boeing requests that the wording of the applicability for the
repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of the
NPRM be revised. The commenter states that the intent of the wording in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 767-27-0197 and 767-27-0198
was for the longer compliance time to be allowed only if BMS 3-33
grease is already in use at the time the lubrication task is being
accomplished. The commenter states that an operator should not be
allowed to take credit for planned future use of BMS 3-33 grease.
The commenter recommends that paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM be
revised to read ``* * * BMS 3-33 is not already being used * * *'' and
paragraph (i)(2) of the NPRM be revised to read ``* * * BMS 3-33 is
already being used * * *''
We agree with the commenter. For clarity, we have revised
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
Request To Allow Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Tasks as an AMOC
ABSA Cargo Airline requests that certain MPD tasks be considered an
acceptable AMOC for the actions specified in the NPRM. The commenter
states that Model 767 MPD D622T001,
[[Page 30273]]
Revision August 2005, Items 12-21-04-3A/-3B, 12-21-06-3A/-3B, and 27-
02-00-6A/-6B, already contain the same lubrication and freeplay tasks
on the elevator and rudder surfaces as those specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197, with a 9-month interval
for lubrication and a 2C interval (12,000 flight hours or 36 months)
for freeplay check.
We do not agree to allow tasks done in accordance with the MPD as
an AMOC. Compliance times have to be based on defined intervals to
ensure that the required action in an AD will be done within an
appropriate timeframe for safe operation of the airplane. Since
operators' scheduled maintenance (letter) checks vary, it is possible
that an operator's C-check could occur after the compliance time
required in this AD. In addition, MPD tasks may be revised in the
future and therefore may differ from the requirements in this AD.
However, paragraph (l) of this AD provides operators the opportunity to
request an AMOC if data are presented to substantiate the actions
provide an equivalent level of safety.
Request To Withdraw NPRM
Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member American
Airlines (AAL), does not agree with the provisions of the NPRM or with
the use of an AD to mandate changes to the maintenance programs.
AAL states that maintenance should be governed and dictated through
the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), FAA Aircraft Evaluation
Group (AEG), with program oversight by FAA Flight Standards, and should
not be required via an AD. AAL also states that implementation and
oversight of an AD is costly to airlines, especially ADs that do not
contain terminating action. AAL proposes that the NPRM be withdrawn and
that the maintenance be implemented through proper channels, i.e., the
MRBR. AAL concludes that when the FAA does not communicate well between
branches, excessive costs may be driven into an operator's budget, in
this case due to additional oversight required for an AD.
ATA also concludes that comments by its members indicate that the
provisions of the NPRM would be best implemented through the existing
maintenance review board. ATA summarizes its members' comments as
follows:
ATA notes that AAL's comments illustrate the impact of
using an AD rather than existing programs for implementing necessary
maintenance changes.
ATA states that Delta Air Lines' (DAL) comments illustrate
inefficient disparities among the proposed repetitive intervals. DAL's
comments are described in the ``Request to Revise Repetitive Interval''
paragraph in the preamble of this AD.
ATA states that U.S. Airways' (USA) comments illustrate
that there are alternative streamlined methods for accomplishing the
intent of the NPRM. USA's comments are described in the ``Request for
an AMOC for the Rudder Freeplay Inspection'' paragraph in the preamble
of this AD.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to withdraw this AD,
or that an AD is not the proper vehicle for addressing the identified
unsafe condition. According to the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
39.1), the issuance of an AD is based on the finding that an unsafe
condition exists or is likely to develop in aircraft of a particular
type design. The responsibilities placed on us by the Federal Aviation
Act do not prohibit us from making any unsafe condition--whether
resulting from maintenance, design defect, or otherwise--the proper
subject of an AD. Therefore, regardless of the cause or the source of
an unsafe condition, we have the authority to issue an AD when an
unsafe condition is found that is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design. We consider issuance of an AD
necessary because ADs are the means to mandate accomplishment of
procedures and adherence to specific compliance times.
We acknowledge that some operators may currently have their own
maintenance programs to address an unsafe condition. If a program
contained all the requirements of an AD, an operator would already be
in compliance with the AD, or would be in a position to obtain approval
for an AMOC with the AD (i.e., to follow the operator's current program
rather than revise it to comply with the AD). However, our obligation
to issue the AD and address an unsafe condition remains. We have not
changed this AD in this regard. However, if an operator wishes to
request an AMOC, a provision has been specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD.
Request To Revise Repetitive Interval
DAL requests that the repetitive lubrication interval for rudder
and elevator components be the same for all airplanes, regardless of
the type of grease that is used. The commenter states that it does not
have any negative experiences using non-BMS 3-33 grease, and therefore
the 18-month/6,000-flight-hour interval is appropriate for all greases.
The commenter contends that a unified interval reduces the risk of non-
compliance when an airplane must receive non-routine, non-scheduled
servicing. The commenter also states that if all approved greases
cannot support the 18-month/6,000-flight-hour interval, then it
requests that as many greases as possible be added to the allowable
greases for the longer interval.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern; however, we do not agree.
The lubrication is required at intervals not to exceed the earlier of
3,000 flight hours or 9 months for airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease
is not used; and the earlier of 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for
airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease is used. The compliance times are
consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations. In addition, the
commenter did not provide technical substantiation allowing the
calendar time to exceed 9 months or 18 months, depending on the type of
grease used. We have determined that the compliance times in the AD
represent the maximum interval of time allowable for the affected
airplanes to continue to safely operate before the actions are done.
However, according to the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we
may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request
includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
Request for an AMOC for the Rudder Freeplay Inspection
USA requests that an AMOC be included for completing the rudder and
elevator freeplay inspection. The commenter suggests a method for the
rudder freeplay inspection, which is the same as the elevator freeplay
inspection and which uses only one measurement. The commenter states
this is an easier method that will ensure less possibility of error by
completing only one measurement.
We do not agree with this request. The commenter did not provide
data substantiating that this alternative method for the rudder
freeplay inspection would provide an acceptable level of safety. We
have determined that the inspection must be accomplished according to
the manufacturer's procedures. However, an operator may apply for an
AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, if data are
submitted to substantiate that the procedure would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
[[Page 30274]]
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 979 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet and 423 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table
provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
No parts are necessary to accomplish either action.
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Average U.S.-
Action Work hours labor rate Cost per airplane registered Fleet cost
per hour airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeplay measurement............ 8 $65 $520, per 423 $219,960, per
measurement cycle. measurement
cycle.
Lubrication..................... 27 $65 $1,755, per 423 $742,365, per
lubrication cycle. lubrication
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 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):
2006-11-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-14616. Docket No. FAA-2006-23818;
Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-228-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective June 30, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F,
and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of freeplay-induced vibration
of the rudder and the elevator. The potential for vibration of the
control surface should be avoided because the point of transition
from vibration to divergent flutter is unknown. We are issuing this
AD to prevent excessive vibration of the airframe during flight,
which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Service Bulletin References
(f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as
applicable:
(1) For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes: Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0197, dated October 27,
2005; and
(2) For Model 767-400ER series airplanes: Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 767-27-0198, dated October 27, 2005.
Repetitive Measurements
(g) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD; or
within 36 months since the date of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness; whichever occurs later: Measure
the rudder and elevator freeplay. Repeat the measurement thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight hours or 36 months,
whichever occurs first. Do all actions required by this paragraph in
accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
Related Investigative and Corrective Actions
(h) If any measurement found in paragraph (g) of this AD exceeds
any applicable limit specified in the service bulletin: Before
further flight, do the applicable related investigative and
corrective actions in accordance with the applicable service
bulletin.
Repetitive Lubrication
(i) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD; or
within 9 months since the date of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness; whichever occurs later:
Lubricate the rudder and elevator components specified in the
service bulletin.
[[Page 30275]]
Repeat the lubrication thereafter at the applicable interval in
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. Do all actions required by
this paragraph in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(1) For airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease is not already in use
prior to the time the lubrication task is being accomplished: At
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight hours or 9 months, whichever
occurs first.
(2) For airplanes on which BMS 3-33 grease is already in use
prior to the time the lubrication task is being accomplished: At
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever
occurs first.
Concurrent Repetitive Cycles
(j) If a freeplay measurement required by paragraph (g) of this
AD and a lubrication cycle required by paragraph (i) of this AD are
due at the same time or will be accomplished during the same
maintenance visit, the freeplay measurement and applicable related
investigative and corrective actions must be done before the
lubrication is accomplished.
No Reporting Required
(k) Although the service bulletins referenced in this AD specify
to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not
include that requirement.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(l)(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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(m) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-
27-0197, dated October 27, 2005; or Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767-27-0198, dated October 27, 2005; 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 17, 2006.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-4846 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P