Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F Series Airplanes, 52999-53003 [E6-14782]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
information as included in the
Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in
the AD Docket. You may get a copy of
this summary by sending a request to us
at the address listed under ADDRESSES.
Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2006–24640;
Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–26–AD’’
in your request.
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. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the
following new AD:
I
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 Federal Aviation Administration
amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
I
2006–18–16 Raytheon Aircraft Company:
Amendment 39–14755; Docket No.
FAA–2006–24640; Directorate Identifier
2006–CE–26–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective on October
13, 2006.
52999
Applicability
(c) This AD affects Model 390 airplanes,
serial numbers RB–1 and RB–4 through RB–
139, that are certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD is the result of two reports of
the spigot bearing not being positioned flush
with the fitting assembly, but protruding
outside of the fitting assembly. The actions
specified in this AD are intended to detect
spigot bearings that are not positioned flush
with the fitting assembly. This condition
could result in the spigot bearing becoming
disengaged from the fitting assembly, which
could cause motion between the wing and
the fuselage and degrade the structural
integrity of the wing attachment to the
fuselage. This could lead to wing separation
and loss of control of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) To address this problem, you must do
the following:
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Actions
Compliance
Procedures
(1) Inspect to determine whether the spigot
bearing, part number (P/N) MS14104–16, is
positioned flush inside the spigot fitting assembly and not protruding outside of the fitting assembly.
(2) Install the spigot bearing retainer kit, P/N
390–4304–0001. This installation terminates
the inspection requirements in paragraph
(e)(1) of this AD.
Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after October 13, 2006 (the effective date of this
AD), and repetitively inspect thereafter
every 50 hours TIS until the installation in
paragraph (e)(2) of this AD is done.
At whichever of the following occurs first, unless already done:.
(i) Before further flight after any inspection required by this AD where the spigot bearing,
P/N MS14104–16, is found not to be flush
with the spigot fitting assembly; or
(ii) Within 200 hours TIS or one calendar year
October 13, 2006 (the effective date of this
AD), whichever occurs first
Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB 53–3765, issued: November, 2005.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN:
David Ostrodka, Senior Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita ACO, Airframe and Services Branch,
ACE–118W, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4129;
facsimile: (316) 946–4107, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html or call (202) 741–6030. 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 20590–001 or on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA–
2006–24640; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–
26–AD.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Related Information
(g) None.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(h) You must do the actions required by
this AD following the instructions in
Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB 53–3765, issued:
November, 2005. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by
reference of this service bulletin in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. To get a copy of this service
information, contact Raytheon Aircraft
Company, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas
67201. To review copies of this service
information, go to the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, go to: https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:41 Sep 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August
30, 2006.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–14781 Filed 9–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB 53–3765, issued: November, 2005.
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–23873; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–110–AD; Amendment
39–14756; AD 2006–18–17]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 747–400, 747–400D, and 747–
400F Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an
existing airworthiness directive (AD),
which applies to certain Boeing Model
747–400, 747–400D, and 747–400F
series airplanes. The existing AD
currently requires reviewing airplane
maintenance records; inspecting the
yaw damper actuator portion of the
upper and lower rudder power control
modules (PCMs) for cracking, and
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
53000
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
replacing the PCMs if necessary; and
reporting all airplane maintenance
records review and inspection results to
the manufacturer. This new AD expands
the applicability and discontinues
certain requirements of the existing AD.
This AD adds repetitive inspections of
the PCMs, and replacement of the PCMs
if necessary. This AD results from
manufacturer findings that the
inspections required by the existing AD
must be performed at regular intervals.
We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking in the yaw damper
actuator portion of the upper and lower
rudder PCMs, which could result in an
uncommanded left rudder hardover,
consequent increased pilot workload,
and possible runway departure upon
landing.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
October 13, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of October 13, 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:
Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–
130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6487; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
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
supersedes AD 2003–23–01, amendment
39–13364 (68 FR 64263, November 13,
2003). The existing AD applies to
certain Boeing Model 747–400, 747–
400D, and 747–400F series airplanes.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:41 Sep 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on February 13, 2006
(71 FR 7446). That NPRM proposed to
continue to require certain requirements
of the existing AD. That NPRM also
proposed to expand the applicability
and discontinue certain requirements of
the existing AD. That NPRM also
proposed to require repetitive
inspections of the power control
modules (PCMs) and replacement of the
PCMs if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments that have
been received on the NPRM.
Support for the NPRM
One commenter, Northwest Airlines
(NWA), expresses support for the
NPRM, stating that the type of failure
event addressed in the NPRM has
occurred on a NWA airplane.
Request to Cite Revised Service
Information
Three commenters, Boeing, South
African Airways, and NWA request that
we revise the NPRM to refer to current
service information. The commenters
state that Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
27A2397, Revision 2, dated September
1, 2005, has been issued.
We agree with this request. We have
determined that Boeing Service Bulletin
747–27A2397, Revision 2, shows
changes of operators in the effectivity
and clarifies the compliance
information, but does not add any
further actions or increase the economic
burden on operators. Therefore, we have
revised the AD to refer to Boeing Service
Bulletin 747–27A2397, Revision 2, as
the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the
requirements of the AD. We have also
revised paragraph (k) of the AD to
indicate that actions done previously in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–27A2397, Revision 1,
dated March 31, 2005, are also
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.
Request to Remove Certain Part
Numbers (P/Ns)
One commenter, Boeing, requests that
two P/Ns be removed from the NPRM.
Boeing states that P/Ns 332700–1009
and 333200–1009 are internal supplier
P/Ns that are stamped on the PCM
manifold and are not PCM top assembly
P/Ns. Boeing states that these P/Ns are
not referenced on the equipment
identification plate for either the upper
or lower PCM.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
We agree with this request. Though
all revisions of the Boeing service
bulletin specify P/Ns 332700–1009 and
333200–1009 as replacement P/Ns for
cracked PCMs, we have determined that
these P/Ns do not refer to PCM top
assemblies; instead, these P/Ns refer
only to the PCM manifolds. Only top
assembly P/Ns of the upper or lower
rudder PCMs should be identified in the
AD; that is P/N 332700–1003, –1005, or
–1007; or P/N 333200–1003, –1005, or
–1007. Therefore, to prevent confusion
on the part of operators attempting to
track PCM installations, we have
removed the reference to P/Ns 332700–
1009 and 333200–1009 as top assembly
P/Ns from paragraph (l) of the AD.
Request to Revise Paragraph (j)(2) of the
NPRM
One commenter, Fortner Engineering,
requests that we revise paragraph (j)(2)
of the NPRM to read ‘‘PCMs or
manifolds’’ rather than ‘‘PCMs’’ only.
Fortner Engineering states that certified
repair stations in addition to Parker
Hannifin, which is the PCM original
equipment manufacturer (OEM),
overhaul the valve (manifold) and that
those repair stations should not be
required to send the entire PCM to the
OEM if a crack is discovered in the
manifold. Fortner Engineering asserts
that, as long as all information required
by paragraph (j)(1) of the NPRM is
included with the manifold, there is no
need to send the entire PCM to the
OEM.
We agree with this request. The intent
of paragraph (j)(2) of this AD is to return
PCMs having cracked manifolds to the
manufacturer for analysis of the cause of
the cracking. If the PCM can be returned
to service with a new or serviceable
manifold, there is no need to send the
entire assembly to the OEM. Therefore,
we have revised paragraph (j)(2) of the
AD to read ‘‘PCMs or manifolds.’’
Request to Revise Paragraph (l) of the
NPRM
The same commenter requests that we
delete the phrase, ‘‘either by the
operator or the supplier’’ from
paragraph (l), ‘‘Parts Installation,’’ of the
NPRM. Fortner Engineering asserts that
the operator should be free to determine
whether the PCMs will be inspected by
the operator, the supplier, or any other
appropriately rated and equipped
facility.
We agree with this request. The intent
of paragraph (l) of the AD is to ensure
that all affected PCMs are inspected for
cracks before any return to service. The
primary concern is not which facility
inspects the PCMs, but rather that the
inspections are performed by properly
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
equipped and authorized facilities in
accordance with the applicable service
information. Therefore, we have revised
paragraph (l) by deleting the phrase
specified by Fortner Engineering.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Request to Include Alternative Method
of Inspection
The same commenter requests that we
include an alternative method of
inspecting for cracking of the manifolds
of suspected PCMs. Fortner Engineering
states that a dye penetrant inspection
performed in accordance with ASTME474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity
Level 4, will better ensure detection of
any manifold defects. Further, Fortner
Engineering asserts that the OEM,
Parker Hannifin, has already received
approval of this dye penetrant method
as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) with AD 2003–23–01.
We agree that a dye penetrant
inspection is an acceptable alternative
to the ultrasonic inspection specified by
the AD, because the dye penetrant
technique provides a more thorough
method for detecting cracking of the
area of interest on the PCM manifold.
However, we do not agree that ASTM–
E474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity
Level 4, has already been approved as
an AMOC with AD 2003–23–01. In fact,
the AMOC using dye penetrant
inspection that was requested by Parker
Hannifin and approved as of November
21, 2003, was in accordance with
ASTM–E1417, Type 1, Method A,
Sensitivity Level 4, and does not
actually specify that it applies to the
manifold. We are not aware of the dye
penetrant inspection specification
ASTM–E474, Type 1, Method A,
Sensitivity Level 4; therefore, no change
is necessary to the AD in this regard.
However, as specified in paragraph (m)
of the AD, a further AMOC may be
requested if data are submitted to
substantiate that ASTM-E474, Type 1,
Method A, Sensitivity Level 4, specifies
an acceptable method of inspection for
compliance with the requirements of
this AD.
Notification of Compliance Time
Conflict
The Air Transport Association (ATA),
on behalf of its member NWA, states
that there are errors in a chronology
described in the preamble of the NPRM.
NWA points out an apparent conflict
between the compliance times specified
in different sections of the NPRM. NWA
notes that the third paragraph of the
‘‘Actions Since Existing AD Was
Issued’’ section of the preamble states,
‘‘The compliance time for the initial
inspection (for airplanes not previously
inspected as required by AD 2003–23–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:41 Sep 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
01) has been revised to the earlier of
56,000 total flight hours or 9,000 total
flight cycles * * *.’’ NWA then notes
that paragraph (h) of the NPRM states,
‘‘For airplanes not inspected prior to the
effective date of this AD as specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD: At the later of
the times specified * * * prior to the
accumulation of 56,000 total flight
hours or 9,000 total flight cycles * * *.’’
We acknowledge NWA’s concern;
however, we do not agree that there is
a conflict in the compliance time
statements. Paragraph (h) of the AD
more fully states, ‘‘For airplanes not
inspected prior to the effective date of
this AD as specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD, At the later of the times
specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of
this AD * * *.’’ Paragraph (h)(1) of the
AD states, ‘‘Prior to the accumulation of
56,000 total flight hours or 9,000 total
flight cycles, whichever occurs first.’’
Paragraph (h)(2) of the AD states,
‘‘Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD.’’ The ‘‘later of the
times’’ statement of paragraph (h) refers
to the relationship between paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2). In paragraph (h)(1), the
statement, ‘‘whichever occurs first’’ is
consistent with the statement ‘‘the
earlier of’’ that appears in the ‘‘Actions
Since Existing AD Was Issued’’ section
of the preamble. Paragraph (h)(2) is the
grace period for airplanes not inspected
prior to the effective date of the AD. No
change is needed to the AD in this
regard.
Request to Withdraw NPRM
ATA, on behalf of its member United
Airlines (UAL), states that it is opposed
to the NPRM. UAL states that, based on
the original AD 2003–23–01, there have
been no further reports of cracked PCM
manifolds. UAL asserts that the original
incident of a cracked PCM manifold
airplane failure was an isolated event,
and further asserts that the event was
controllable. Although UAL made no
specific statement to this effect, we infer
that UAL considers the AD to be
unnecessary and requests us to
withdraw the NPRM.
We do not agree with this request.
Although UAL correctly states that no
other cracked PCM manifolds have been
discovered since the release of AD
2003–23–01, the root cause for the
premature fatigue failure of the lower
rudder PCM on the event airplane has
yet to be determined; and although
analysis of the results of accomplishing
AD 2003–23–01 did not yield that root
cause, that analysis highlighted a
previously unidentified single point
failure of the PCMs. This new AD is
intended to protect against such a single
point failure occurring on the upper
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53001
rudder PCM. Without the on-going
inspections required by this AD, a
developing crack of either the upper or
lower PCM could remain latent and
grow to the point of failure, which,
under certain phases of flight, could be
catastrophic. For these reasons, we have
determined that this AD is necessary to
maintain safety of the fleet and will not
be withdrawn. Further, the inspection
reports required by this AD will enable
the manufacturer to obtain better insight
into the nature, cause, and extent of the
cracking, and to possibly develop final
action to address the unsafe condition.
Once final action has been identified,
we may consider further rulemaking.
Recommendation to Develop In-Flight
Procedures to Deal with a Failed PCM
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)
recommends that procedures to deal
with an in-flight situation of a failed
rudder PCM be developed and provided
to the flightcrews. ALPA states that this
procedure would aid pilot workload in
the event of a failed rudder PCM. ALPA
submitted the same comment to the
docket for AD 2003–23–01, asserting
that ‘‘industry must develop a set of
operational procedures to allow
flightcrews to deal with such an inflight situation.’’ ALPA states that no
such procedures have yet been provided
and reiterates its recommendation that
industry supply such procedures.
We acknowledge ALPA’s concern. We
understand that any such procedures
would be provided by industry; in this
case, Boeing. However, we have
concluded, and Boeing concurs, that the
repetitive inspections required by this
AD will detect any cracking or potential
cracking of the PCM before any PCM
failure. Therefore, non-normal
operational procedures are not needed
to maintain fleet safety in this regard. As
ALPA did not request any specific
change to the NPRM, we have not
changed the AD as regards this
comment.
Request to Reduce Compliance Time
The same commenter, ALPA, requests
that we change the compliance time of
the NPRM from 24 months to 12
months. ALPA states that the potential
hazard for an ‘‘uncommanded rudder
hardover, consequent increased pilot
workload, and possible runway
departure upon landing’’ warrants a
more conservative initial inspection
period. ALPA asserts that allowing a
longer initial time period may allow
failed yaw damper actuators to remain
in operation much longer than
necessary and put may aircraft at risk of
experiencing a failure similar to the one
on the incident airplane.
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
53002
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
We do not agree. AD 2003–23–01 has
already required the inspection of
Model 747–400 airplanes with
suspected high usage rudder PCMs, and
the compliance period to complete the
original inspections has passed with no
additional failures detected. This, along
with the knowledge the rudder PCMs
have undergone extensive investigation,
provides us with a degree of confidence
that there are no imminent failures
predicted. Instead, we have determined
that on-going inspections are needed
because the root cause for the premature
fatigue failure on the incident airplane
has not been determined. Further, this
AD is intended to protect against a
failure condition not previously
analyzed: failure of the upper rudder
PCM. The existing initial compliance
time of 24 months provides a balance
between further possible failures due to
the unknown cause of the failed part
and the additional burden of on-going
inspections. No revision is needed to
the AD in this matter.
Clarification of Parts Installation
Paragraph
The clear intent of this AD is that
PCMs having cracked manifolds must be
removed from service and replaced with
serviceable PCMs having manifolds
without cracks. To prevent confusion
and ensure conformity with the intent of
the AD, we have added the phrase ‘‘and
found to be without cracks’’ to
paragraph (l) of the AD.
Conclusion
We have reviewed the available data,
including the comments that have been
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Interim Action
Because the root cause of the cracking
addressed in AD 2003–23–01 has not
yet been determined, we consider this
AD to be interim action and have
continued the requirement to return
cracked PCMs or manifolds to Parker
Hannifin in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
If final action is later identified, we may
consider further rulemaking then.
Costs of Compliance
There are approximately 636
airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. We estimate that 86
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected
by this AD, and that it will take
approximately 4 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the ultrasonic
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:41 Sep 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
inspection, at an average labor rate of
$65 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the inspection
is estimated to be $22,360, or $260 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 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
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 removing amendment 39–13364 (68
FR 64263, November 13, 2003) and
adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
I
2006–18–17 Boeing: Amendment 39–14756.
Docket No. FAA–2006–23873;
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–110–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 13,
2006.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2003–23–01.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model
747–400, 747–400D, and 747–400F series
airplanes, certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from manufacturer
findings that the inspections required by AD
2003–23–01 must be performed at regular
intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct potential cracking in the yaw
damper actuator portion of the upper and
lower rudder power control modules (PCMs),
which could result in an uncommanded left
rudder hardover, consequent increased pilot
workload, and possible runway departure
upon landing.
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.
Verification of Rudder PCM/Main Manifold
Time-in-Service
(f) For any affected airplane, if it can be
positively verified that any rudder PCM or
PCM main manifold installed on that
airplane has accumulated a different total of
flight hours or flight cycles than the totals
accumulated by that airplane, the flight
cycles or flight hours accumulated by the
rudder PCM or PCM main manifold will be
acceptable as valid starting points for
meeting the compliance times required by
this AD.
Inspection Accomplished Prior to the
Issuance of This AD
(g) For airplanes which, prior to the
effective date of this AD, have received an
ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the yaw
damper actuator portion of the upper and
lower rudder PCM, in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2397,
dated July 24, 2003, as required by AD 2003–
23–01: Do paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and
(g)(4) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
contained in this regulation have been
approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB
Control Number 2120–0056.
(1) If any inspection required by this AD
reveals any indication of a cracked or broken
part, submit a report to: The Boeing
Company, Service Engineering—Mechanical
Systems. The report must contain the
airplane and rudder PCM serial numbers, the
total flight hours and flight cycles for each
rudder PCM (and rudder PCM main
manifold, if known), and a description of any
damage found. Submission of the Inspection
Report Form (Figure 3 of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747–27A2397, Revision 2, dated
September 1, 2005) is one acceptable method
of complying with this requirement.
(2) Send any cracked or broken PCMs or
manifolds to Parker Hannifin Corporation in
accordance with the shipping instructions
specified in Appendix A of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–27A2397, Revision 2,
dated September 1, 2005.
Initial Inspection
(h) For airplanes not inspected prior to the
effective date of this AD as specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD: At the later of the
times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic inspection
for cracking of the yaw damper actuator
portion of the upper and lower rudder PCM
main manifold; and do the actions specified
in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, as
applicable; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747–27A2397, Revision 2,
dated September 1, 2005. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 28,000 flight hours or 4,500 flight
cycles, whichever occurs first.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 56,000
total flight hours or 9,000 total flight cycles,
whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Boeing Service Bulletin 747–27A2397,
Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005.
(1) Perform the ultrasonic inspection
described in paragraph (g) of this AD at the
later of the times specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, then do
paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, as
applicable; and paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.
(i) Within 28,000 flight hours or 4,500
flight cycles after the date of the prior
inspection, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD.
(2) If no cracking is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (h)
of this AD: Apply sealant and a torque stripe
and install a lockwire on the rudder PCM in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions and Figure 1 or Figure 2, as
applicable, of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1,
2005.
(3) If any cracking is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (h)
of this AD: Before further flight, replace the
affected PCM with a new or serviceable PCM
and submit the report required by paragraph
(i) of this AD.
(4) Repeat the ultrasonic inspection
described in paragraph (g) of this AD at
intervals not to exceed 28,000 flight hours or
4,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first,
and repeat the actions in paragraph (g)(2) or
(g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
Parts Installation
(l) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person shall install on any airplane a rudder
PCM having a top assembly part number (P/
N) 332700–1003, –1005, or –1007; or P/N
333200–1003, –1005, or –1007; unless the
PCM has been ultrasonically inspected and
found to be without cracks; in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747–27A2397,
Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005.
Reporting Requirements and Damaged Parts
Disposition
(i) For all airplanes: At the applicable time
specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
AD, accomplish the actions in paragraph (j)
of this AD.
(1) If the inspection was done after the
effective date of this AD: Submit the report
and part, if applicable, within 30 days after
the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the
effective date of this AD: Submit the report
and part, if applicable, within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD.
(j) At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD: Do the requirements
of paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
Information collection requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:41 Sep 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Prior Accomplishment of Requirements
(k) Actions accomplished before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2397,
dated July 24, 2003; or Revision 1, dated
March 31, 2005; are considered acceptable
for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(m)(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.
(3) AMOCs approved previously according
to AD 2003–23–01 are approved as AMOCs
with this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin
747–27A2397, Revision 2, dated September
1, 2005, 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 this document 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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53003
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 August
30, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–14782 Filed 9–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
20 CFR Part 320
RIN 32207–AB58
Electronic Filing of Reconsideration
Requests by Railroad Employers
Railroad Retirement Board.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Railroad Retirement
Board (Board) amends its regulations to
include the option of electronic filing by
railroad employers of requests for
reconsideration of initial decisions
under the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act (RUIA). Part 320
currently requires that reconsideration
requests be submitted in writing. The
amended rule allows reconsideration
requests to be made by railroad
employers either in writing or
electronically. In addition, § 320.10(c)
and 320.10(d) inadvertently contain
inaccurate references. This amended
rule corrects those references.
DATES: Effective Date: This regulation
will be effective September 8, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Beatrice Ezerski, Secretary
to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board,
844 Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General
Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board,
844 Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611,
(312) 751–4945, TDD (312) 754–4701.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 320 of
the Board’s regulations deals generally
with administrative review of initial
determinations of claims or requests for
waiver of recovery of overpayments
under the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act (RUIA). Currently, the
regulations require all requests for
reconsideration of initial decisions to be
made in writing. The Railroad
Retirement Board amends its regulations
to allow railroad employers to use
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52999-53003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14782]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2006-23873; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-110-AD;
Amendment 39-14756; AD 2006-18-17]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and
747-400F Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-
400F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires reviewing
airplane maintenance records; inspecting the yaw damper actuator
portion of the upper and lower rudder power control modules (PCMs) for
cracking, and
[[Page 53000]]
replacing the PCMs if necessary; and reporting all airplane maintenance
records review and inspection results to the manufacturer. This new AD
expands the applicability and discontinues certain requirements of the
existing AD. This AD adds repetitive inspections of the PCMs, and
replacement of the PCMs if necessary. This AD results from manufacturer
findings that the inspections required by the existing AD must be
performed at regular intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and
lower rudder PCMs, which could result in an uncommanded left rudder
hardover, consequent increased pilot workload, and possible runway
departure upon landing.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 13, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 13,
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: Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone (425) 917-6487; 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 supersedes AD 2003-23-01, amendment
39-13364 (68 FR 64263, November 13, 2003). The existing AD applies to
certain Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2006
(71 FR 7446). That NPRM proposed to continue to require certain
requirements of the existing AD. That NPRM also proposed to expand the
applicability and discontinue certain requirements of the existing AD.
That NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections of the power
control modules (PCMs) and replacement of the PCMs if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM.
Support for the NPRM
One commenter, Northwest Airlines (NWA), expresses support for the
NPRM, stating that the type of failure event addressed in the NPRM has
occurred on a NWA airplane.
Request to Cite Revised Service Information
Three commenters, Boeing, South African Airways, and NWA request
that we revise the NPRM to refer to current service information. The
commenters state that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2,
dated September 1, 2005, has been issued.
We agree with this request. We have determined that Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, shows changes of operators in the
effectivity and clarifies the compliance information, but does not add
any further actions or increase the economic burden on operators.
Therefore, we have revised the AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin
747-27A2397, Revision 2, as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the requirements of the AD. We have also
revised paragraph (k) of the AD to indicate that actions done
previously in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
27A2397, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, are also acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
Request to Remove Certain Part Numbers (P/Ns)
One commenter, Boeing, requests that two P/Ns be removed from the
NPRM. Boeing states that P/Ns 332700-1009 and 333200-1009 are internal
supplier P/Ns that are stamped on the PCM manifold and are not PCM top
assembly P/Ns. Boeing states that these P/Ns are not referenced on the
equipment identification plate for either the upper or lower PCM.
We agree with this request. Though all revisions of the Boeing
service bulletin specify P/Ns 332700-1009 and 333200-1009 as
replacement P/Ns for cracked PCMs, we have determined that these P/Ns
do not refer to PCM top assemblies; instead, these P/Ns refer only to
the PCM manifolds. Only top assembly P/Ns of the upper or lower rudder
PCMs should be identified in the AD; that is P/N 332700-1003, -1005, or
-1007; or P/N 333200-1003, -1005, or -1007. Therefore, to prevent
confusion on the part of operators attempting to track PCM
installations, we have removed the reference to P/Ns 332700-1009 and
333200-1009 as top assembly P/Ns from paragraph (l) of the AD.
Request to Revise Paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM
One commenter, Fortner Engineering, requests that we revise
paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM to read ``PCMs or manifolds'' rather than
``PCMs'' only. Fortner Engineering states that certified repair
stations in addition to Parker Hannifin, which is the PCM original
equipment manufacturer (OEM), overhaul the valve (manifold) and that
those repair stations should not be required to send the entire PCM to
the OEM if a crack is discovered in the manifold. Fortner Engineering
asserts that, as long as all information required by paragraph (j)(1)
of the NPRM is included with the manifold, there is no need to send the
entire PCM to the OEM.
We agree with this request. The intent of paragraph (j)(2) of this
AD is to return PCMs having cracked manifolds to the manufacturer for
analysis of the cause of the cracking. If the PCM can be returned to
service with a new or serviceable manifold, there is no need to send
the entire assembly to the OEM. Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(j)(2) of the AD to read ``PCMs or manifolds.''
Request to Revise Paragraph (l) of the NPRM
The same commenter requests that we delete the phrase, ``either by
the operator or the supplier'' from paragraph (l), ``Parts
Installation,'' of the NPRM. Fortner Engineering asserts that the
operator should be free to determine whether the PCMs will be inspected
by the operator, the supplier, or any other appropriately rated and
equipped facility.
We agree with this request. The intent of paragraph (l) of the AD
is to ensure that all affected PCMs are inspected for cracks before any
return to service. The primary concern is not which facility inspects
the PCMs, but rather that the inspections are performed by properly
[[Page 53001]]
equipped and authorized facilities in accordance with the applicable
service information. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (l) by
deleting the phrase specified by Fortner Engineering.
Request to Include Alternative Method of Inspection
The same commenter requests that we include an alternative method
of inspecting for cracking of the manifolds of suspected PCMs. Fortner
Engineering states that a dye penetrant inspection performed in
accordance with ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity Level 4, will
better ensure detection of any manifold defects. Further, Fortner
Engineering asserts that the OEM, Parker Hannifin, has already received
approval of this dye penetrant method as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) with AD 2003-23-01.
We agree that a dye penetrant inspection is an acceptable
alternative to the ultrasonic inspection specified by the AD, because
the dye penetrant technique provides a more thorough method for
detecting cracking of the area of interest on the PCM manifold.
However, we do not agree that ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity
Level 4, has already been approved as an AMOC with AD 2003-23-01. In
fact, the AMOC using dye penetrant inspection that was requested by
Parker Hannifin and approved as of November 21, 2003, was in accordance
with ASTM-E1417, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity Level 4, and does not
actually specify that it applies to the manifold. We are not aware of
the dye penetrant inspection specification ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A,
Sensitivity Level 4; therefore, no change is necessary to the AD in
this regard. However, as specified in paragraph (m) of the AD, a
further AMOC may be requested if data are submitted to substantiate
that ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity Level 4, specifies an
acceptable method of inspection for compliance with the requirements of
this AD.
Notification of Compliance Time Conflict
The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member NWA,
states that there are errors in a chronology described in the preamble
of the NPRM. NWA points out an apparent conflict between the compliance
times specified in different sections of the NPRM. NWA notes that the
third paragraph of the ``Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued'' section
of the preamble states, ``The compliance time for the initial
inspection (for airplanes not previously inspected as required by AD
2003-23-01) has been revised to the earlier of 56,000 total flight
hours or 9,000 total flight cycles * * *.'' NWA then notes that
paragraph (h) of the NPRM states, ``For airplanes not inspected prior
to the effective date of this AD as specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD: At the later of the times specified * * * prior to the accumulation
of 56,000 total flight hours or 9,000 total flight cycles * * *.''
We acknowledge NWA's concern; however, we do not agree that there
is a conflict in the compliance time statements. Paragraph (h) of the
AD more fully states, ``For airplanes not inspected prior to the
effective date of this AD as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, At
the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this
AD * * *.'' Paragraph (h)(1) of the AD states, ``Prior to the
accumulation of 56,000 total flight hours or 9,000 total flight cycles,
whichever occurs first.'' Paragraph (h)(2) of the AD states, ``Within
24 months after the effective date of this AD.'' The ``later of the
times'' statement of paragraph (h) refers to the relationship between
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2). In paragraph (h)(1), the statement,
``whichever occurs first'' is consistent with the statement ``the
earlier of'' that appears in the ``Actions Since Existing AD Was
Issued'' section of the preamble. Paragraph (h)(2) is the grace period
for airplanes not inspected prior to the effective date of the AD. No
change is needed to the AD in this regard.
Request to Withdraw NPRM
ATA, on behalf of its member United Airlines (UAL), states that it
is opposed to the NPRM. UAL states that, based on the original AD 2003-
23-01, there have been no further reports of cracked PCM manifolds. UAL
asserts that the original incident of a cracked PCM manifold airplane
failure was an isolated event, and further asserts that the event was
controllable. Although UAL made no specific statement to this effect,
we infer that UAL considers the AD to be unnecessary and requests us to
withdraw the NPRM.
We do not agree with this request. Although UAL correctly states
that no other cracked PCM manifolds have been discovered since the
release of AD 2003-23-01, the root cause for the premature fatigue
failure of the lower rudder PCM on the event airplane has yet to be
determined; and although analysis of the results of accomplishing AD
2003-23-01 did not yield that root cause, that analysis highlighted a
previously unidentified single point failure of the PCMs. This new AD
is intended to protect against such a single point failure occurring on
the upper rudder PCM. Without the on-going inspections required by this
AD, a developing crack of either the upper or lower PCM could remain
latent and grow to the point of failure, which, under certain phases of
flight, could be catastrophic. For these reasons, we have determined
that this AD is necessary to maintain safety of the fleet and will not
be withdrawn. Further, the inspection reports required by this AD will
enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature,
cause, and extent of the cracking, and to possibly develop final action
to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified,
we may consider further rulemaking.
Recommendation to Develop In-Flight Procedures to Deal with a Failed
PCM
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) recommends that procedures to
deal with an in-flight situation of a failed rudder PCM be developed
and provided to the flightcrews. ALPA states that this procedure would
aid pilot workload in the event of a failed rudder PCM. ALPA submitted
the same comment to the docket for AD 2003-23-01, asserting that
``industry must develop a set of operational procedures to allow
flightcrews to deal with such an in-flight situation.'' ALPA states
that no such procedures have yet been provided and reiterates its
recommendation that industry supply such procedures.
We acknowledge ALPA's concern. We understand that any such
procedures would be provided by industry; in this case, Boeing.
However, we have concluded, and Boeing concurs, that the repetitive
inspections required by this AD will detect any cracking or potential
cracking of the PCM before any PCM failure. Therefore, non-normal
operational procedures are not needed to maintain fleet safety in this
regard. As ALPA did not request any specific change to the NPRM, we
have not changed the AD as regards this comment.
Request to Reduce Compliance Time
The same commenter, ALPA, requests that we change the compliance
time of the NPRM from 24 months to 12 months. ALPA states that the
potential hazard for an ``uncommanded rudder hardover, consequent
increased pilot workload, and possible runway departure upon landing''
warrants a more conservative initial inspection period. ALPA asserts
that allowing a longer initial time period may allow failed yaw damper
actuators to remain in operation much longer than necessary and put may
aircraft at risk of experiencing a failure similar to the one on the
incident airplane.
[[Page 53002]]
We do not agree. AD 2003-23-01 has already required the inspection
of Model 747-400 airplanes with suspected high usage rudder PCMs, and
the compliance period to complete the original inspections has passed
with no additional failures detected. This, along with the knowledge
the rudder PCMs have undergone extensive investigation, provides us
with a degree of confidence that there are no imminent failures
predicted. Instead, we have determined that on-going inspections are
needed because the root cause for the premature fatigue failure on the
incident airplane has not been determined. Further, this AD is intended
to protect against a failure condition not previously analyzed: failure
of the upper rudder PCM. The existing initial compliance time of 24
months provides a balance between further possible failures due to the
unknown cause of the failed part and the additional burden of on-going
inspections. No revision is needed to the AD in this matter.
Clarification of Parts Installation Paragraph
The clear intent of this AD is that PCMs having cracked manifolds
must be removed from service and replaced with serviceable PCMs having
manifolds without cracks. To prevent confusion and ensure conformity
with the intent of the AD, we have added the phrase ``and found to be
without cracks'' to paragraph (l) of the AD.
Conclusion
We have reviewed the available data, including the comments that
have been 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.
Interim Action
Because the root cause of the cracking addressed in AD 2003-23-01
has not yet been determined, we consider this AD to be interim action
and have continued the requirement to return cracked PCMs or manifolds
to Parker Hannifin in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. If final action is
later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then.
Costs of Compliance
There are approximately 636 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. We estimate that 86 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, and that it will take approximately 4 work hours
per airplane to accomplish the ultrasonic inspection, at an average
labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the inspection is estimated to be $22,360, or $260 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 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
removing amendment 39-13364 (68 FR 64263, November 13, 2003) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
2006-18-17 Boeing: Amendment 39-14756. Docket No. FAA-2006-23873;
Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-110-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 13, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-23-01.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and
747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from manufacturer findings that the
inspections required by AD 2003-23-01 must be performed at regular
intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential
cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower
rudder power control modules (PCMs), which could result in an
uncommanded left rudder hardover, consequent increased pilot
workload, and possible runway departure upon landing.
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.
Verification of Rudder PCM/Main Manifold Time-in-Service
(f) For any affected airplane, if it can be positively verified
that any rudder PCM or PCM main manifold installed on that airplane
has accumulated a different total of flight hours or flight cycles
than the totals accumulated by that airplane, the flight cycles or
flight hours accumulated by the rudder PCM or PCM main manifold will
be acceptable as valid starting points for meeting the compliance
times required by this AD.
Inspection Accomplished Prior to the Issuance of This AD
(g) For airplanes which, prior to the effective date of this AD,
have received an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the yaw
damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder PCM, in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated
July 24, 2003, as required by AD 2003-23-01: Do paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of
[[Page 53003]]
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1,
2005.
(1) Perform the ultrasonic inspection described in paragraph (g)
of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, then do paragraph (g)(2) or
(g)(3) of this AD, as applicable; and paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.
(i) Within 28,000 flight hours or 4,500 flight cycles after the
date of the prior inspection, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If no cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) or (h) of this AD: Apply sealant and a torque
stripe and install a lockwire on the rudder PCM in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 1 or Figure 2, as
applicable, of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2,
dated September 1, 2005.
(3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, replace
the affected PCM with a new or serviceable PCM and submit the report
required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(4) Repeat the ultrasonic inspection described in paragraph (g)
of this AD at intervals not to exceed 28,000 flight hours or 4,500
flight cycles, whichever occurs first, and repeat the actions in
paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
Initial Inspection
(h) For airplanes not inspected prior to the effective date of
this AD as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: At the later of
the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD,
perform an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the yaw damper
actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder PCM main manifold;
and do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this
AD, as applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2,
dated September 1, 2005. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 28,000 flight hours or 4,500 flight cycles,
whichever occurs first.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 56,000 total flight hours or
9,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
Reporting Requirements and Damaged Parts Disposition
(i) For all airplanes: At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, accomplish the actions in
paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report and part, if applicable, within 30 days after
the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report and part, if applicable, within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD.
(j) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD: Do the requirements of paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
Information collection requirements contained in this regulation
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.
(1) If any inspection required by this AD reveals any indication
of a cracked or broken part, submit a report to: The Boeing Company,
Service Engineering--Mechanical Systems. The report must contain the
airplane and rudder PCM serial numbers, the total flight hours and
flight cycles for each rudder PCM (and rudder PCM main manifold, if
known), and a description of any damage found. Submission of the
Inspection Report Form (Figure 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005) is one acceptable
method of complying with this requirement.
(2) Send any cracked or broken PCMs or manifolds to Parker
Hannifin Corporation in accordance with the shipping instructions
specified in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005.
Prior Accomplishment of Requirements
(k) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated
July 24, 2003; or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
this AD.
Parts Installation
(l) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
on any airplane a rudder PCM having a top assembly part number (P/N)
332700-1003, -1005, or -1007; or P/N 333200-1003, -1005, or -1007;
unless the PCM has been ultrasonically inspected and found to be
without cracks; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September
1, 2005.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(m)(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.
(3) AMOCs approved previously according to AD 2003-23-01 are
approved as AMOCs with this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision
2, dated September 1, 2005, 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 this
document 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 August 30, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-14782 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
