Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) Airplanes, 75413-75417 [E6-21268]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Compliance DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (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. Installing Protective Fairings (f) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, visually check the installation of the two headrest bushings and install Mecanindus pins, P/N GPMECAE2–5x5, to secure the bushings. Use the instructions in paragraph 2 of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 133–25–006, dated May 12, 1999, to perform the visual inspection and install the pins. Alternative Methods of Compliance (g) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information (h) Direction Generale de L’Aviation Civile airworthiness directive 2000–042(AB), dated January 26, 2000, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference (i) You must use Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 133–25–006, dated May 12, 1999, to perform the actions required by this AD. 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. Contact Sicma Aero Seat, 7 Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 Issoudun, France, telephone: (33) 54 03 39 39; fax: (33) 54 03 15 16, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: https:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 7, 2006. Robert J. Ganley, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6–21186 Filed 12–14–06; 8:45 am] cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2006–25645; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–201–AD; Amendment 39–14857; AD 2006–25–16] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL–600–1A11 (CL–600), CL– 600–2A12 (CL–601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL–601–3R) Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bombardier Model CL–600–1A11 (CL– 600), CL–600–2A12 (CL–601), and CL– 600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL–601–3R) airplanes. This AD requires implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance inspection program to include a CPCP. This AD results from the determination that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airplane due to corrosion. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 19, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 19, 2007. 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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Beckwith, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE– 171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7302; fax (516) 794–5531. 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:57 Dec 14, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 75413 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 Bombardier Model CL–600– 1A11 (CL–600), CL–600–2A12 (CL–601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL– 601–3R) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48487). That NPRM proposed to require implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance inspection program to include a CPCP. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM 15DER1 75414 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES individuals; traditionally, ‘‘affected individuals’’ means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (‘‘Replacement and modification parts’’) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in DMS. We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to the commenter’s request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation’s DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment. Request To Revise Cost Estimate Air Trans Con/Pittco states that the NPRM does not address the required subscription to the CPCP manual. The Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605 (CPCP), dated July VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:57 Dec 14, 2006 Jkt 211001 28, 2004 (for Model CL–600–1A11 (CL– 600) airplanes); Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601–5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004 (for Model CL–600– 2A12 (CL–601) airplanes); and Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A–5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004 (for Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL–601–3R) airplanes); are referred to as the appropriate sources of service information for certain actions specified in the NPRM and are referred to as ‘‘the Manual’’ in this AD. The commenter states that the first-year cost of these manuals would be between $5,000 and $9,000 per airplane. The commenter also notes that the facilities certified to work on the affected airplanes charge $93.00 per work hour plus a service charge of three percent, making an average labor rate of $95.79 per work hour. We infer that the commenter requests that we revise the cost estimate in the NPRM. We do not agree. In February 2006, we increased the labor rate used in our calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour to account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry. The $80-per-work-hour number is an estimate and we acknowledge that the rate will vary depending on where an operator accomplishes the actions specified in this AD. However, an AD cannot account for all fleetwide variabilities. We have not revised this AD in this regard. In addition, we recognize that in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators may incur ‘‘incidental’’ costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, the general cost of doing business, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions, in addition to the ‘‘direct’’ costs that are reflected in the cost analysis presented in the AD preamble. The Manual is necessary to ensure that affected airplanes are operated in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation Regulations, but the Manual is a cost of doing business and is necessary to the operator for other reasons not required by this AD, such as developing a maintenance program. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the costs of the specific actions required by the AD action. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Request To Provide Extensions to the Compliance Times Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we provide rules and extensions to the PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 compliance times specified in the NPRM as defined in Section 5–20–05, page 2, of the Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A–5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004. The commenter states that the recommended extension tolerance for hourly controlled items is ten percent of the task interval or 45 hours, whichever is the lesser. The commenter also notes that the recommended extension tolerance for calendar controlled items is ten percent of the task interval or two months, whichever is the lesser. The commenter contends that the calendar items in the inspection and maintenance programs are also allowed at the respective interval and to the end of the calendar month for items that are not hard-time items. The commenter states that the NPRM should provide for extension tolerances allowed to individual task intervals other than airworthiness limitations. We do not agree to allow extensions to the compliance times. Section 5–20– 05 is not contained in Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/ Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A–5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004, nor are the recommended extension tolerances stated by the commenter. In developing appropriate compliance times for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspections within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. However, according to the procedures in paragraph (n) of the final rule, 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 the final rule in this regard. Request To Remove Corrective Action Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we remove paragraph (j) of the NPRM. The commenter states that the requirement specified in paragraph (j) to address any corrosion found during the actions specified in the NRPM is redundant with existing rules. The commenter explains that corrosion on any airplane is not listed in the airplane’s type certificate data sheet and must be addressed prior to further flight when found during an inspection. We do not agree to remove paragraph (j) of the final rule. If an unsafe condition is found during any action required by an AD, the AD must specify an appropriate corrective action. E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM 15DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Request To Revise Compliance Time for Reporting to the Manufacturer Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we revise the reporting time specified in paragraph (k)(1) of the NPRM from ‘‘* * * within 3 days after finding Level 3 corrosion * * *’’ to ‘‘* * * prior to return of service of the aircraft * * *.’’ The commenter states that all corrosion must be addressed prior to the return to service of the airplane and that Level 3 corrosion will require a remedy by the manufacturer. We do not agree. It is possible that the corrective action will not be coordinated with the manufacturer, as in the case of parts replacement. Furthermore, waiting until the time of return to service to report Level 3 corrosion could unnecessarily delay reporting, especially when an airplane is down for an extended period. Level 3 corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern and reporting should not be delayed. We have not revised the final rule in this regard. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Request To Revise Compliance Time for Submitting Scheduling Plan or Providing Data To Substantiate Corrosion Was Isolated Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we revise the compliance time specified in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM from ‘‘* * * within 10 days after finding Level 3 corrosion * * *’’ to ‘‘* * * within 10 days after return to service of the airplane * * *.’’ The commenter states that most depot-level maintenance and inspections are carried out at facilities that are far from the operator’s home base, making it difficult to submit to the local Flight Standards District Office the scheduling plan or the data substantiating that corrosion was isolated. We do not agree. Waiting until the time of return to service to submit the information could unnecessarily delay implementation of the plan, especially when an airplane is down for an extended period. Level 3 corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern and a plan to inspect the reminder of the fleet should not be delayed. We have not revised the final rule in this regard. Request To Impose Response Compliance Time for the FAA Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that the FAA be required to impose any schedule, other than proposed in a plan submitted by an operator, within 30 calendar days after submission of that plan as specified in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM. If there is no response from the FAA within 30 days, the commenter states that the submitted plan should be accepted/approved by default. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:57 Dec 14, 2006 Jkt 211001 We acknowledge that we should respond to operators in a timely manner. However we do not agree to impose a response time on us to either approve a submitted plan or provide another schedule. Level 3 corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern. We, along with the operator, must address level 3 corrosion with urgency. However, we cannot allow submitted plans to be approved without being reviewed. We must ensure that any plan will prove an acceptable level for the affected fleet. We have not revised this final rule in this regard. Request To Remove Requirement To Schedule Corrosion Tasks for Transferred Airplanes Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we remove the requirement to schedule corrosion tasks for transferred airplanes specified in paragraph (m) of the NPRM. The commenter states that this proposed requirement ‘‘* * * impedes commerce and does not address the transferring of an aircraft to or from a foreign operator * * *.’’ The commenter also states that paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the NPRM are vague and are redundant with other proposed requirements in the NPRM. We do not agree. The new operator of a transferred airplane, whether transferred from another U.S. operator or from an operator from outside the U.S., must establish an acceptable schedule for accomplishing the actions that are required by this AD. Paragraph (m) of this AD is intended to ensure that transferred airplanes are inspected in accordance with the AD on the same basis as if there were continuity in ownership, and that scheduling inspections for each airplane is not delayed or postponed due to a transfer of ownership. Airplanes that have previously been subject to the AD must be inspected in accordance with either the previous operator’s or the new operator’s schedule, whichever will result in the earlier accomplishment date for that inspection. Other airplanes must be inspected before an operator can begin operating them, or in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA. Operators should note that the areas to be inspected are those that are specified in the CPCP tasks required by this AD. Paragraph (m) of this AD states that a schedule to accomplish the CPCP tasks required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 75415 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 as proposed. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 204 airplanes of U.S. registry. There are between 72 and 74 specific inspections, depending on the applicable Manual. The inspections take about 74 work hours per airplane, per inspection cycle, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $1,207,680, or $5,920 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 E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM 15DER1 75416 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 2006–25–16 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39–14857. Docket No. FAA–2006–25645; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–201–AD. Effective Date (a) This AD becomes effective January 19, 2007. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL–600–1A11 (CL–600), CL–600– 2A12 (CL–601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601– 3A and CL–601–3R) airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from the determination that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airplane due to corrosion. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 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. Manual References (f) The term ‘‘the Manual,’’ as used in this AD, means the documents specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Although the Manual specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD requires reporting only Level 3 corrosion. (1) For Model CL–600–1A11 (CL–600) airplanes: Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004; (2) For Model CL–600–2A12 (CL–601) airplanes: Bombardier Challenger 601 Time VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:57 Dec 14, 2006 Jkt 211001 Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601–5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004; and (3) For Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL–601–3R) airplanes: Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A–5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004. Initial Inspections (g) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Perform each of the corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) tasks, including reprotection actions, as applicable, specified in Paragraph 9, ‘‘List of Tasks,’’ of the applicable Manual, in accordance with the procedures specified in the applicable Manual. (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD. (2) At the next CPCP task interval specified in the ‘‘Interval’’ column in the applicable table in Paragraph 9, ‘‘List of Tasks,’’ of the applicable Manual. The times in the ‘‘Interval’’ column are in flight hours unless there is an ‘‘M’’ adjacent to the number. If there is an ‘‘M’’ adjacent to the number, the time is in months. If there are two different numbers for a task, the number with a ‘‘T’’ adjacent to it is the threshold and the number with an ‘‘R’’ adjacent to it is the repetitive interval. Repetitive Inspections (h) After accomplishment of each initial CPCP task required by paragraph (g) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Repeat each of the CPCP tasks, and re-protection actions, as applicable, specified in Paragraph 9, ‘‘List of Tasks,’’ of the applicable Manual, at intervals not to exceed the compliance time specified in the ‘‘Interval’’ column in the applicable table in Paragraph 9, ‘‘List of Tasks,’’ of the applicable Manual. The times in the ‘‘Interval’’ column are in flight hours unless there is an ‘‘M’’ adjacent to the number. If there is an ‘‘M’’ adjacent to the number, the time is in months. If there are two different numbers for a task, the number with a ‘‘T’’ adjacent to it is the threshold and the number with an ‘‘R’’ adjacent to it is the repetitive interval. (i) After accomplishment of each initial CPCP task required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the FAA may approve the incorporation into the operator’s approved maintenance/ inspection program of either the CPCP specified in the applicable Manual and this AD, or an equivalent program that is approved by the FAA. In all cases, the initial CPCP task for each airplane area must be completed at the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Flight Standards District Office. (1) Any operator complying with paragraph (i) of this AD may use an alternative recordkeeping method to that otherwise required by section 91.417 (‘‘Maintenance records’’) or section 121.380 (‘‘Maintenance recording requirements’’) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.417 or 14 CFR 121.380, respectively) for the actions required by this AD, provided that the PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 recordkeeping method is approved by the FAA and is included in a revision to the FAA-approved maintenance/inspection program. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Flight Standards District Office. (2) After the initial accomplishment of the tasks required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any extension of the repetitive intervals specified in the applicable Manual must be approved by the FAA. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Corrective Actions (j) If any corrosion is found during accomplishment of any action required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, rework, repair, or replace, as applicable, all subject parts, in accordance with Paragraph 7, ‘‘Application of the CPCP Check,’’ of the applicable Manual. Reporting Requirements and Repetitive Actions for Remainder of Affected Fleet (k) If any Level 3 corrosion, as defined in the Introduction of the applicable Manual, is found during accomplishment of any action required by this AD: Do paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD, and assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. (1) Within 3 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, report findings to Bombardier in accordance with paragraph 7.J. of the applicable Manual. (2) Within 10 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, either submit a plan to the FAA to identify a schedule for accomplishing the applicable CPCP task on the remainder of the airplanes in the operator’s fleet that are subject to this AD, or provide data substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion that was found is an isolated case. The FAA may impose a schedule other than proposed in the plan upon finding that a change to the schedule is needed to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely manner. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for operators that are assigned a PMI (e.g., part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators (e.g., part 91 operators). (3) Within the time schedule approved in accordance with paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, accomplish the applicable task on the remainder of the airplanes in the operator’s fleet that are subject to this AD. Limiting Future Corrosion Findings (l) If corrosion findings that exceed Level 1 are found in any area during any repeat of any CPCP task after the initial accomplishment required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 60 days after such finding, implement a means approved by the FAA to reduce future findings of corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant PMI for operators that are assigned E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM 15DER1 75417 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations a PMI (e.g. part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators (e.g., part 91 operators). Scheduling Corrosion Tasks for Transferred Airplanes (m) Before any airplane subject to this AD is transferred and placed into service by an operator: Establish a schedule for accomplishing the CPCP tasks required by this AD in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable. (1) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD have been accomplished previously at the schedule established by this AD: Perform the first CPCP task in each area in accordance with the previous operator’s schedule, or in accordance with the new operator’s schedule, whichever results in an earlier accomplishment of that CPCP task. After the initial accomplishment of each CPCP task in each area as required by this paragraph, repeat each CPCP task in accordance with the new operator’s schedule. (2) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD have not been accomplished previously, or have not been accomplished at the schedule established by this AD: The new operator must perform each initial CPCP task in each area before further flight or in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant PMI for operators that are assigned a PMI (e.g., part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators (e.g., part 91 operators). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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. Related Information (o) Canadian airworthiness directive CF– 2005–06, dated March 10, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference (p) You must use the applicable service information specified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. TABLE 1.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Service information Date Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance .................................................................................................................... Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605 (CPCP) Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance .................................................................................................................... Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601–5 (CPCP) Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance .................................................................................................................... Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A–5 (CPCP) 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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, 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 December 7, 2006. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6–21268 Filed 12–14–06; 8:45 am] cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES BILLING CODE 4910–13–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:57 Dec 14, 2006 Jkt 211001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis 15 CFR Part 801 RIN 0691–AA60 [Docket No. 060824224–6310–02] International Services Surveys: BE– 120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets With Foreign Persons Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce (BEA) to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE–120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons. This survey replaces a similar but more limited survey, the BE–20, Benchmark Survey of Selected Services Transactions with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons. The agency form number and survey title are being changed because the survey is being reconfigured to reflect changes in BEA’s survey program for international services that have occurred since the previous BE–20 survey was conducted, as well as to begin collection of data on PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 July 28, 2004. July 28, 2004. July 28, 2004. transactions with affiliated foreigners and unaffiliated foreigners using the same survey instruments. The BE–120 survey will be conducted once every five years beginning with fiscal year 2006. The BE–120 survey is intended to cover the universe of selected services transactions and transactions in intangible assets with foreign persons. In nonbenchmark years, universe estimates covering these transactions will be derived from the sample data reported on BEA’s follow-on quarterly survey, by extrapolating forward the universe data collected on the BE–120 benchmark survey. DATES: The final rule will be effective January 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Obie G. Whichard, Chief, International Investment Division (BE–50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; email obie.whichard@bea.gov; or phone (202) 606–9890. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the September 15, 2006 Federal Register, 71 FR 54448, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth reporting requirements for the BE–120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons. No comments were received on the proposed rule. However, one change to the proposed E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM 15DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75413-75417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25645; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-201-AD; 
Amendment 39-14857; AD 2006-25-16]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), 
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) 
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 
Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-
600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) airplanes. This AD requires 
implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either 
by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance 
inspection program to include a CPCP. This AD results from the 
determination that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit 
indications of corrosion. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural 
failure of the airplane due to corrosion.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 19, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 19, 
2007.

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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, 
Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service 
information identified in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Beckwith, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft 
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New 
York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7302; fax (516) 794-5531.

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 Bombardier Model 
CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A 
and CL-601-3R) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal 
Register on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48487). That NPRM proposed to 
require implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) 
either by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance 
inspection program to include a CPCP.

Comments

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

Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information

    The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states 
that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service 
information originating with the type certificate holder or its 
suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately 
authored instruments generally having copyright protection against 
duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document 
is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an 
airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and 
becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is 
used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be 
referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by 
definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely 
upon private writings.
    MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should 
be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management 
System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes 
that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is 
brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by 
publishing documents already in the hands of the affected

[[Page 75414]]

individuals; traditionally, ``affected individuals'' means aircraft 
owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by 
the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals 
has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now 
performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. 
MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair 
organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors 
and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing 
alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (``Replacement and 
modification parts'') of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic 
as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. 
Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to 
the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the 
regulatory instrument, and published in DMS.
    We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference 
during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register 
(OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the 
requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final 
rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the 
documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated 
by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are 
incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not 
lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public 
to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service 
information.
    In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on 
the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process 
of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on DMS 
as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects 
of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider 
whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the 
final rule is necessary in response to this comment.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    Air Trans Con/Pittco states that the NPRM does not address the 
required subscription to the CPCP manual. The Bombardier Challenger 600 
Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605 (CPCP), dated 
July 28, 2004 (for Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes); Bombardier 
Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 
601-5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) 
airplanes); and Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance 
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A-5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004 (for 
Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) airplanes); are referred to 
as the appropriate sources of service information for certain actions 
specified in the NPRM and are referred to as ``the Manual'' in this AD. 
The commenter states that the first-year cost of these manuals would be 
between $5,000 and $9,000 per airplane. The commenter also notes that 
the facilities certified to work on the affected airplanes charge 
$93.00 per work hour plus a service charge of three percent, making an 
average labor rate of $95.79 per work hour.
    We infer that the commenter requests that we revise the cost 
estimate in the NPRM. We do not agree. In February 2006, we increased 
the labor rate used in our calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 
per work hour to account for various inflationary costs in the airline 
industry. The $80-per-work-hour number is an estimate and we 
acknowledge that the rate will vary depending on where an operator 
accomplishes the actions specified in this AD. However, an AD cannot 
account for all fleetwide variabilities. We have not revised this AD in 
this regard.
    In addition, we recognize that in accomplishing the requirements of 
any AD, operators may incur ``incidental'' costs, such as the time 
required to gain access and close up, the general cost of doing 
business, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative 
actions, in addition to the ``direct'' costs that are reflected in the 
cost analysis presented in the AD preamble. The Manual is necessary to 
ensure that affected airplanes are operated in an airworthy condition, 
as required by the Federal Aviation Regulations, but the Manual is a 
cost of doing business and is necessary to the operator for other 
reasons not required by this AD, such as developing a maintenance 
program. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes 
only the costs of the specific actions required by the AD action. We 
have not revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Provide Extensions to the Compliance Times

    Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we provide rules and extensions 
to the compliance times specified in the NPRM as defined in Section 5-
20-05, page 2, of the Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance 
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A-5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004. The 
commenter states that the recommended extension tolerance for hourly 
controlled items is ten percent of the task interval or 45 hours, 
whichever is the lesser. The commenter also notes that the recommended 
extension tolerance for calendar controlled items is ten percent of the 
task interval or two months, whichever is the lesser. The commenter 
contends that the calendar items in the inspection and maintenance 
programs are also allowed at the respective interval and to the end of 
the calendar month for items that are not hard-time items. The 
commenter states that the NPRM should provide for extension tolerances 
allowed to individual task intervals other than airworthiness 
limitations.
    We do not agree to allow extensions to the compliance times. 
Section 5-20-05 is not contained in Bombardier Challenger 601 Time 
Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A-5 (CPCP), dated 
July 28, 2004, nor are the recommended extension tolerances stated by 
the commenter. In developing appropriate compliance times for this 
action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe 
condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect 
of accomplishing the required inspections within a period of time that 
corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected 
operators. However, according to the procedures in paragraph (n) of the 
final rule, 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 the final 
rule in this regard.

Request To Remove Corrective Action

    Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we remove paragraph (j) of the 
NPRM. The commenter states that the requirement specified in paragraph 
(j) to address any corrosion found during the actions specified in the 
NRPM is redundant with existing rules. The commenter explains that 
corrosion on any airplane is not listed in the airplane's type 
certificate data sheet and must be addressed prior to further flight 
when found during an inspection.
    We do not agree to remove paragraph (j) of the final rule. If an 
unsafe condition is found during any action required by an AD, the AD 
must specify an appropriate corrective action.

[[Page 75415]]

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Reporting to the Manufacturer

    Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we revise the reporting time 
specified in paragraph (k)(1) of the NPRM from ``* * * within 3 days 
after finding Level 3 corrosion * * *'' to ``* * * prior to return of 
service of the aircraft * * *.'' The commenter states that all 
corrosion must be addressed prior to the return to service of the 
airplane and that Level 3 corrosion will require a remedy by the 
manufacturer.
    We do not agree. It is possible that the corrective action will not 
be coordinated with the manufacturer, as in the case of parts 
replacement. Furthermore, waiting until the time of return to service 
to report Level 3 corrosion could unnecessarily delay reporting, 
especially when an airplane is down for an extended period. Level 3 
corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern and reporting should not 
be delayed. We have not revised the final rule in this regard.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Submitting Scheduling Plan or 
Providing Data To Substantiate Corrosion Was Isolated

    Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we revise the compliance time 
specified in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM from ``* * * within 10 days 
after finding Level 3 corrosion * * *'' to ``* * * within 10 days after 
return to service of the airplane * * *.'' The commenter states that 
most depot-level maintenance and inspections are carried out at 
facilities that are far from the operator's home base, making it 
difficult to submit to the local Flight Standards District Office the 
scheduling plan or the data substantiating that corrosion was isolated.
    We do not agree. Waiting until the time of return to service to 
submit the information could unnecessarily delay implementation of the 
plan, especially when an airplane is down for an extended period. Level 
3 corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern and a plan to inspect 
the reminder of the fleet should not be delayed. We have not revised 
the final rule in this regard.

Request To Impose Response Compliance Time for the FAA

    Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that the FAA be required to impose 
any schedule, other than proposed in a plan submitted by an operator, 
within 30 calendar days after submission of that plan as specified in 
paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM. If there is no response from the FAA 
within 30 days, the commenter states that the submitted plan should be 
accepted/approved by default.
    We acknowledge that we should respond to operators in a timely 
manner. However we do not agree to impose a response time on us to 
either approve a submitted plan or provide another schedule. Level 3 
corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern. We, along with the 
operator, must address level 3 corrosion with urgency. However, we 
cannot allow submitted plans to be approved without being reviewed. We 
must ensure that any plan will prove an acceptable level for the 
affected fleet. We have not revised this final rule in this regard.

Request To Remove Requirement To Schedule Corrosion Tasks for 
Transferred Airplanes

    Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we remove the requirement to 
schedule corrosion tasks for transferred airplanes specified in 
paragraph (m) of the NPRM. The commenter states that this proposed 
requirement ``* * * impedes commerce and does not address the 
transferring of an aircraft to or from a foreign operator * * *.'' The 
commenter also states that paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the NPRM are 
vague and are redundant with other proposed requirements in the NPRM.
    We do not agree. The new operator of a transferred airplane, 
whether transferred from another U.S. operator or from an operator from 
outside the U.S., must establish an acceptable schedule for 
accomplishing the actions that are required by this AD. Paragraph (m) 
of this AD is intended to ensure that transferred airplanes are 
inspected in accordance with the AD on the same basis as if there were 
continuity in ownership, and that scheduling inspections for each 
airplane is not delayed or postponed due to a transfer of ownership. 
Airplanes that have previously been subject to the AD must be inspected 
in accordance with either the previous operator's or the new operator's 
schedule, whichever will result in the earlier accomplishment date for 
that inspection. Other airplanes must be inspected before an operator 
can begin operating them, or in accordance with a schedule approved by 
the FAA.
    Operators should note that the areas to be inspected are those that 
are specified in the CPCP tasks required by this AD. Paragraph (m) of 
this AD states that a schedule to accomplish the CPCP tasks required by 
this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) or 
(m)(2) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

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 as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    This AD affects about 204 airplanes of U.S. registry. There are 
between 72 and 74 specific inspections, depending on the applicable 
Manual. The inspections take about 74 work hours per airplane, per 
inspection cycle, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based 
on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is 
$1,207,680, or $5,920 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

[[Page 75416]]

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):

2006-25-16 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-14857. 
Docket No. FAA-2006-25645; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-201-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective January 19, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-
600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-
3R) airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from the determination that, as airplanes 
age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. We 
are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airplane 
due to corrosion.

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.

Manual References

    (f) The term ``the Manual,'' as used in this AD, means the 
documents specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this 
AD, as applicable. Although the Manual specifies to submit certain 
information to the manufacturer, this AD requires reporting only 
Level 3 corrosion.
    (1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes: Bombardier 
Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 
605 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004;
    (2) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes: Bombardier 
Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 
601-5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004; and
    (3) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) airplanes: 
Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) 
Supplement, PSP 601A-5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004.

Initial Inspections

    (g) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(g)(2) of this AD: Perform each of the corrosion prevention and 
control program (CPCP) tasks, including re-protection actions, as 
applicable, specified in Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of the 
applicable Manual, in accordance with the procedures specified in 
the applicable Manual.
    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) At the next CPCP task interval specified in the ``Interval'' 
column in the applicable table in Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of 
the applicable Manual. The times in the ``Interval'' column are in 
flight hours unless there is an ``M'' adjacent to the number. If 
there is an ``M'' adjacent to the number, the time is in months. If 
there are two different numbers for a task, the number with a ``T'' 
adjacent to it is the threshold and the number with an ``R'' 
adjacent to it is the repetitive interval.

Repetitive Inspections

    (h) After accomplishment of each initial CPCP task required by 
paragraph (g) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (i) of 
this AD: Repeat each of the CPCP tasks, and re-protection actions, 
as applicable, specified in Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of the 
applicable Manual, at intervals not to exceed the compliance time 
specified in the ``Interval'' column in the applicable table in 
Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of the applicable Manual. The times 
in the ``Interval'' column are in flight hours unless there is an 
``M'' adjacent to the number. If there is an ``M'' adjacent to the 
number, the time is in months. If there are two different numbers 
for a task, the number with a ``T'' adjacent to it is the threshold 
and the number with an ``R'' adjacent to it is the repetitive 
interval.
    (i) After accomplishment of each initial CPCP task required by 
paragraph (g) of this AD, the FAA may approve the incorporation into 
the operator's approved maintenance/inspection program of either the 
CPCP specified in the applicable Manual and this AD, or an 
equivalent program that is approved by the FAA. In all cases, the 
initial CPCP task for each airplane area must be completed at the 
compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. For the 
purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant 
Flight Standards District Office.
    (1) Any operator complying with paragraph (i) of this AD may use 
an alternative recordkeeping method to that otherwise required by 
section 91.417 (``Maintenance records'') or section 121.380 
(``Maintenance recording requirements'') of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 91.417 or 14 CFR 121.380, respectively) for the 
actions required by this AD, provided that the recordkeeping method 
is approved by the FAA and is included in a revision to the FAA-
approved maintenance/inspection program. For the purposes of this 
paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Flight Standards 
District Office.
    (2) After the initial accomplishment of the tasks required by 
paragraph (g) of this AD, any extension of the repetitive intervals 
specified in the applicable Manual must be approved by the FAA. For 
the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the Manager, 
New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Corrective Actions

    (j) If any corrosion is found during accomplishment of any 
action required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD: Before further 
flight, rework, repair, or replace, as applicable, all subject 
parts, in accordance with Paragraph 7, ``Application of the CPCP 
Check,'' of the applicable Manual.

Reporting Requirements and Repetitive Actions for Remainder of Affected 
Fleet

    (k) If any Level 3 corrosion, as defined in the Introduction of 
the applicable Manual, is found during accomplishment of any action 
required by this AD: Do paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of 
this AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
approved the information collection requirements contained in this 
AD, and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) Within 3 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, report 
findings to Bombardier in accordance with paragraph 7.J. of the 
applicable Manual.
    (2) Within 10 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, 
either submit a plan to the FAA to identify a schedule for 
accomplishing the applicable CPCP task on the remainder of the 
airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject to this AD, or 
provide data substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion that was 
found is an isolated case. The FAA may impose a schedule other than 
proposed in the plan upon finding that a change to the schedule is 
needed to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a 
timely manner. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is 
defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for 
operators that are assigned a PMI (e.g., part 121, 125, and 135 
operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for 
other operators (e.g., part 91 operators).
    (3) Within the time schedule approved in accordance with 
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, accomplish the applicable task on the 
remainder of the airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject 
to this AD.

Limiting Future Corrosion Findings

    (l) If corrosion findings that exceed Level 1 are found in any 
area during any repeat of any CPCP task after the initial 
accomplishment required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 60 days 
after such finding, implement a means approved by the FAA to reduce 
future findings of corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better. For 
the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant 
PMI for operators that are assigned

[[Page 75417]]

a PMI (e.g. part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant 
Flight Standards District Office for other operators (e.g., part 91 
operators).

Scheduling Corrosion Tasks for Transferred Airplanes

    (m) Before any airplane subject to this AD is transferred and 
placed into service by an operator: Establish a schedule for 
accomplishing the CPCP tasks required by this AD in accordance with 
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD 
have been accomplished previously at the schedule established by 
this AD: Perform the first CPCP task in each area in accordance with 
the previous operator's schedule, or in accordance with the new 
operator's schedule, whichever results in an earlier accomplishment 
of that CPCP task. After the initial accomplishment of each CPCP 
task in each area as required by this paragraph, repeat each CPCP 
task in accordance with the new operator's schedule.
    (2) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD 
have not been accomplished previously, or have not been accomplished 
at the schedule established by this AD: The new operator must 
perform each initial CPCP task in each area before further flight or 
in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA. For the purposes 
of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant PMI for 
operators that are assigned a PMI (e.g., part 121, 125, and 135 
operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for 
other operators (e.g., part 91 operators).

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (n)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, has the authority to approve 
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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.

Related Information

    (o) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-06, dated March 10, 
2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (p) You must use the applicable service information specified in 
Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this 
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

              Table 1.--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Service information                          Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/   July 28, 2004.
 Maintenance.
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605
 (CPCP)
Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/   July 28, 2004.
 Maintenance.
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601-5
 (CPCP)
Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/   July 28, 2004.
 Maintenance.
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A-5
 (CPCP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace 
Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 
3G9, Canada, 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 December 7, 2006.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-21268 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.