[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54987-54990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23828]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-342-AD; Amendment 39-13312; AD 2003-19-09]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to all Boeing Model 767 series airplanes, that requires 
repetitive inspections and tests for discrepancies of the drainage 
system of the canted pressure deck located in the wheel wells of the 
main landing gear (MLG) of the left and right wings, and corrective 
actions if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent ice 
accumulation on the lateral flight control cables and/or components due 
to water entering the wheel well of the MLG and freezing, which could 
restrict or jam control cable movement, resulting in loss of 
controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the 
identified unsafe condition.

[[Page 54988]]


DATES: Effective October 27, 2003.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of October 27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules 
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of 
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Masterson, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
917-6441; fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness 
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 767 series 
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2003 (68 
FR 20087). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections and 
tests for discrepancies of the drainage system of the canted pressure 
deck located in the wheel wells of the main landing gear (MLG) of the 
left and right wings, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.

Request To Withdraw the Proposed AD

    One commenter requests that, rather than issue an AD to require the 
inspections proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the 
inspections be incorporated into the Maintenance Planning Document 
(MPD). The commenter states that since certain of the proposed 
inspections (the Phase 2 inspection) are already specified as tasks in 
the MPD, it is unnecessary to require them by AD action. Additionally, 
the commenter points out the amount of work and time necessary to gain 
access (removal of several rows of seats, floor panels, and partitions) 
for the existing MPD inspections would also be required by the 
inspections proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA does not agree that the NPRM should be withdrawn. The 
repetitive intervals in Section 8 of the MPD are a baseline inspection 
program and are written in terms of ``check'' intervals. The check 
intervals may be extended by an FAA-approved maintenance program 
revision. Some operators have had ``C'' checks extended from 18 to 24 
months. For some operators, Section 8 of the MPD may be different than 
the manufacturer's baseline program. We have determined that the unsafe 
condition addressed in this AD requires inspections at the intervals 
specified in the NPRM. To ensure those specific inspection intervals 
are adhered to, an AD must be issued.

Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition

    One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the unsafe condition 
be revised to clarify that the AD actions also are required to prevent 
ice accumulation on components. (The NPRM specified prevention of ice 
on the lateral flight control cables.) The commenter also requests that 
the unsafe condition be revised to specify that the unsafe condition 
``could result in `degraded' or loss of controllability of the 
airplane.''
    The FAA agrees that addition of the words ``and/or components'' 
clarifies the unsafe condition, and has revised the final rule to 
reflect this change. We do not agree that the word ``degraded'' should 
be added to the unsafe condition statement. The phrase ``loss of 
controllability of the airplane'' adequately describes the end-level 
effect on the airplane. ``Degraded controllability'' would not 
necessarily result in loss of control of the airplane, unless there 
were other contributing factors. We do not list all possible conditions 
that could result from ice accumulation, only the end-level effect. No 
change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Requests To Revise Compliance Times

    One commenter requests that the compliance times stated in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of the NPRM be expressed in terms of ``C'' 
checks rather than months. The commenter explains that its ``C'' checks 
are every 24 months so that inspections would occur at 24 months, 48 
months, and 72 months, respectively. The commenter states that the 
compliance time intervals specified in the NPRM of 18, 36, and 54 
months would require its fleet to have special maintenance visits 
scheduled in addition to the normally scheduled ``C'' checks. The 
commenter points out that the cost of special visits and downtime would 
be considerable.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. The commenter 
did not provide any justification to show that increasing the 
compliance time intervals would provide an acceptable level of safety. 
However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of the final rule, we 
may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance times if data 
are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an 
acceptable level of safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in 
this regard.
    Another commenter requests that, for airplanes specified in Work 
Package 2, the repetitive inspection compliance times be extended from 
intervals not to exceed 36 months as proposed in the NPRM, to intervals 
not to exceed 72 months. The commenter explains that the actions 
specified in Work Package 2 will require significant cabin disassembly. 
Therefore, the commenter would like to perform the proposed inspections 
at its ``4C'' (72 months) heavy maintenance visits.
    The FAA does not agree that the repetitive inspection interval 
should be extended. The commenter provided no technical justification 
to show that a 72-month interval would provide an acceptable level of 
safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of the final 
rule, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if 
data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would 
provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to the final rule is 
necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise the Threshold for Work Package 2

    One commenter points out that new airplanes already have the 
improved drain systems. Additionally, the commenter notes that it is 
unlikely that the area inside the canted pressure deck has been 
contaminated with debris on new airplanes, since that area should not 
have been disturbed from years of service or by heavy maintenance 
activities. The commenter objects to the amount of work and time 
necessary to gain access (removal of several rows of seats, floor 
panels, and partitions) to perform inspections that the commenter does 
not consider necessary.
    The FAA does not agree. As explained in the preamble of the NPRM, 
we have received reports of ice accumulation around control cables on 
Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. We point out that we have also 
received similar reports on Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, one of 
which was a report of an event that occurred on the airplane 
approximately three years after the date of manufacture. Therefore, we 
consider that the service history demonstrates

[[Page 54989]]

that new airplanes are not exempt from water accumulation in the canted 
pressure deck. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise Work Package Number

    Two commenters request that bullet number three under the paragraph 
titled ``Difference Between This Proposed AD and Service Bulletins'' be 
revised to read, ``For Work Package 3,'' instead of, ``For Work Package 
1'' as stated in the NPRM.
    The FAA acknowledges that a typographical error occurred in that 
paragraph and that bullet number three should read, ``For Work Package 
3.'' Since it is clear that our intent was to specify that bullet 
number three read, ``For Work Package 3,'' and because the ``Difference 
Between This Proposed AD and Service Bulletins'' paragraph does not 
reappear in this final rule, no change to the final rule is necessary 
in this regard.

Editorial Clarification

    The FAA has revised certain wording regarding the compliance times 
of the repetitive inspection requirements specified in paragraphs (a), 
(b), and (d) of this rule. Instead of specifying that the repetitive 
inspections be repeated ``at least every,'' as stated in paragraphs 
(a), (b), and (d) of the NPRM, this final rule specifies that the 
inspections be repeated ``at intervals not to exceed.''

Conclusion

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

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD

    On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 
(67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness 
directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to 
altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of 
compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we 
have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

Change to Labor Rate Estimate

    We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several 
years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various 
inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to 
increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work 
hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects 
this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 814 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 345 airplanes of U.S. registry 
will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work 
hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection/test of the 
drainage system specified in Work Package 1 of the service bulletins, 
and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these 
figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be 
$22,425, or $65 per airplane.
    It will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish 
the required inspection/cleaning specified in Work Package 2 of the 
service bulletins, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based 
on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection/cleaning required 
by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $89,700, or $260 per 
airplane, per cycle.
    It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish 
the required inspection specified in Work Package 3 of the service 
bulletins, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on 
U.S. operators is estimated to be $44,850, or $130 per airplane, per 
inspection cycle.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this 
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the 
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed 
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform 
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures 
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to 
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other 
administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action 
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained 
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to 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:

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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive:

2003-19-09 Boeing: Amendment 39-13312. Docket 2001-NM-342-AD.

    Applicability: All Model 767 series airplanes, certificated in 
any category.

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of 
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of 
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been 
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to 
address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent ice accumulation on the lateral flight control cables 
and/or components due to water entering the wheel well of the main 
landing gear and freezing, which could

[[Page 54990]]

restrict or jam control cable movement, resulting in loss of 
controllability of the airplane; accomplish the following:

Repetitive Inspections/Tests of the Drainage System/Corrective Actions

    (a) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(a)(2) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the external 
drains, reducer, and drain lines for discrepancies (including 
damage, holes, signs of frozen water, and signs of blockage), per 
Work Package 1 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-51A0023 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series 
airplanes), or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-51A0024 (for Model 
767-400ER series airplanes), both dated September 27, 2001; as 
applicable. Repeat the test after that at intervals not to exceed 18 
months.
    (1) Within 18 months since the date of issuance of the original 
Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the Export 
Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (b) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) of this AD: Clean the cavity for the canted pressure deck and 
do a general visual inspection of the drainage system for 
discrepancies per Work Package 2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 767-51A0023 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -
300F series airplanes), or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-51A0024 
(for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both dated September 27, 
2001; as applicable. Repeat the cleaning and inspection after that 
at intervals not to exceed 36 months.
    (1) Within 36 months since the date of issuance of the original 
Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the Export 
Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (c) If any discrepancy is found during any inspection or test 
required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD, before further 
flight, repair per the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-51A0023 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series 
airplanes), or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-51A0024 (for Model 
767-400ER series airplanes), both dated September 27, 2001; as 
applicable.

Repetitive Inspections of the Canted Pressure Deck/Corrective Action

    (d) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(d)(2) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the canted 
pressure deck for discrepancies (including loose or missing 
fasteners; loose, missing, or cracked sealant; and leak paths), per 
Work Package 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-51A0023 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series 
airplanes), or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-51A0024 (for Model 
767-400ER series airplanes), both dated September 27, 2001; as 
applicable. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, 
repair (including replacing any loose or missing fastener or loose, 
missing, or cracked sealant; and repairing any leak found) per the 
applicable service bulletin. Repeat the inspection after that at 
intervals not to exceed 54 months.
    (1) Within 54 months since the date of issuance of the original 
Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the Export 
Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 54 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection 
is defined as: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior 
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, 
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within 
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be 
necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the 
inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally 
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, 
flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of 
access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be 
required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an 
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add 
comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

    Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permit

    (f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where 
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

    (g) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-51A0023, dated September 27, 2001; or Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 767-51A0024, dated September 27, 2001; as 
applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial 
Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 
Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.

Effective Date

    (h) This amendment becomes effective on October 27, 2003.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 12, 2003.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-23828 Filed 9-18-03; 12:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U