Federal Aviation Administration November 15, 2010 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes
Document Number: 2010-28606
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2010-11-15
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, -300, -400, -400D, and -400F Series Airplanes Powered by Pratt and Whitney 4000 or General Electric CF6-80C2 Series Engines
Document Number: 2010-28605
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2010-11-15
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model 747-200B, -300, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine the part number of the door and to determine if the correct mid-pivot access door is installed, and the installation of a marker on the mid-pivot access door, and if necessary, repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the mid-pivot bolt assembly and eventual replacement of the mid-pivot bolt assembly. This proposed AD results from a report that the left and right spring beam mid-pivot bolt assembly access doors for the No. 1 strut were inadvertently installed in the incorrect position during strut modification. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly installed mid-pivot bolt assemblies on the spring beam on the outboard struts. Incorrectly installed bolt assemblies could lead to fatigue cracking and consequent fracturing of the mid- pivot bolt assembly, which could lead to loss of the spring beam load path and the possible separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during flight.
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes
Document Number: 2010-28604
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2010-11-15
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768, 772, and 772B Turbofan Engines
Document Number: 2010-28583
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2010-11-15
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
We propose to rescind an airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. The existing AD, AD 98-09-27, resulted from aircraft certification testing which revealed that stresses on the thrust reverser hinge were higher than had been anticipated during engine certification, and the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, issuing AD 008-03-97. Since we issued AD 98-09-27, we discovered that its requirements were duplicated in airplane-level AD 2001-09-14, issued by the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate. This proposal to rescind the engine- level AD allows the public the opportunity to comment on the FAA's determination of the duplication of requirements in another AD, before we rescind the engine-level AD.
Aging Airplane Program: Widespread Fatigue Damage
Document Number: 2010-28363
Type: Rule
Date: 2010-11-15
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
This final rule amends FAA regulations pertaining to certification and operation of transport category airplanes to prevent widespread fatigue damage in those airplanes. For certain existing airplanes, the rule requires design approval holders to evaluate their airplanes to establish a limit of validity of the engineering data that supports the structural maintenance program (LOV). For future airplanes, the rule requires all applicants for type certificates, after the affective date of the rule, to establish an LOV. Design approval holders and applicants must demonstrate that the airplane will be free from widespread fatigue damage up to the LOV. The rule requires that operators of any affected airplane incorporate the LOV into the maintenance program for that airplane. Operators may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV unless an extended LOV is approved.