[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62623-62625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24035]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 62623]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2004-19463; Directorate Identifier 2004-NE-14-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-45A, CF6-
50A, CF6-50C, and CF6-50E Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) 
for General Electric Company (GE) CF6-45A, CF6-50A, CF6-50C, and CF6-
50E series turbofan engines that have not incorporated GE Service 
Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-50 S/B 72-1239, Revision 1, dated September 24, 
2003, or that have not incorporated paragraph 3.B. of GE SB No. CF6-50 
S/B 72-1239, original issue, dated May 29, 2003. This proposed AD would 
require inspecting the stage 1 low pressure turbine (LPT) blades for 
damage and replacement of the LPT module if necessary. This proposed AD 
results from a report of a stud that separated from a turbine mid frame 
(TMF) strut and from an updated analysis of strut stud failures. We are 
proposing this AD to prevent an uncontained failure of the engine and 
possible damage to the airplane caused by failure of TMF strut studs.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 27, 
2004.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on 
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from 
General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services, 10525 
Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, telephone (513) 672-
8400, fax (513) 672-8422.
    You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket 
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Curtis, Aerospace Engineer, 
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7192; fax (781) 238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket Management System (DMS)

    We have implemented new procedures for maintaining AD dockets 
electronically. As of May 17, 2004, we post new AD actions on the DMS 
and assign a DMS docket number. We track each action and assign a 
corresponding Directorate identifier. The DMS docket No. is in the form 
``Docket No. FAA-200X-XXXXX.'' Each DMS docket also lists the 
Directorate identifier (``Old Docket Number'') as a cross-reference for 
searching purposes.

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address 
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2004-19463; 
Directorate Identifier 2004-NE-14-AD'' in the subject line of your 
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will 
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the 
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will 
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the 
DMS web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our 
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or 
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, 
etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the 
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you 
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments 
received and, any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on 
the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at 
the street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in 
the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

Discussion

    The FAA recently heard from GE of a TMF strut stud and an LPT stage 
1-to-stage 2 disk joint bolt failure found during engine disassembly. 
GE reported one strut stud failure on a first-run engine, and three 
uncontained engine failures in 1984 and 1985, caused by reused strut 
studs. GE also reported nine strut stud failures on engines removed for 
other causes. Strut stud failures can result in hard debris in the LPT 
flowpath and cause damage to LPT airfoils. Borescope inspection for 
damage to the stage 1 LPT blades can identify the effects of a strut 
stud separation event. Ten unscheduled engine removals have occurred 
due to evidence of strut stud failure. Twenty strut stud failures have 
been found during routine shop inspections. GE issued SB No. 72-0897 in 
March 1987 that introduced an inspection and an improved strut stud 
configuration. Since that SB was issued, one uncontained engine failure 
occurred in 1996, two findings of stud failures on engines

[[Page 62624]]

removed for other causes, and four unscheduled engine removals have 
occurred due to strut stud failures.
    GE found that the cause of strut stud failure may be insufficient 
clearance between the LPT stage 1 nozzle support and the sleeve 
assembly that is fitted to the TMF. During engine operation, thermal 
growth differences can cause bending and reduced low-cycle-fatigue life 
of the strut studs that join the nozzle support to the TMF through the 
sleeve assembly. GE also found that the reuse of strut studs during LPT 
assembly can increase the probability of a strut stud failure.
    GE's analysis shows that continued operation with one or more 
failed strut studs can result in LPT flow path damage, separation of 
adjacent strut studs, and separation of the bolts connecting the LPT 
stage 1 and stage 2 disks. GE's analysis also shows that continued 
operation with separated bolts can lead to overspeed and an uncontained 
failure of the stage 1 disk. This condition, if not corrected, could 
result in an uncontained failure of the engine and possible damage to 
the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Alert 
Service Bulletin (ASB) No. CF6-50 S/B 72-A1251, dated September 24, 
2003, that describes procedures for initial and repetitive borescope 
inspections of stage 1 blades for damage caused by separated strut 
studs, and replacement of the LPT module if stage 1 LPT blade damage 
exceeds aircraft maintenance manual limits.
    GE CF6-45A, CF6-50A, CF6-50C, and CF6-50E series turbofan engines 
that have incorporated GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-1239, Revision 1, dated 
September 24, 2003, or that have incorporated paragraph 3.B. of GE SB 
No. CF6-50 S/B 72-1239, original issue, dated May 29, 2003, are exempt 
from this proposed AD. Those incorporations increase the clearance of 
the stage 1 LPT nozzle and the sleeve fitted to the turbine mid frame, 
which eliminates the cause of failure of TMF strut studs.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Manufacturer's Service 
Information

    GE ASB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-A1251, dated September 24, 2003, does not 
provide for inspection of engines that have already accumulated more 
than 3,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) or 500 cycles-since-last-inspection 
(CSLI). This proposed AD would allow up to 150 cycles-in-service after 
the effective date of the AD for compliance for these engines.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an 
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products 
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require 
initial and repetitive borescope inspections of stage 1 LPT blades for 
damage and replacement of the LPT module if damage exceeds aircraft 
maintenance manual limits.
    The proposed AD would require you to use GE ASB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-
A1251, dated September 24, 2003, to perform these actions.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,079 GE CF6-45A, CF6-50A, CF6-50C, and CF6-50E 
series turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. 
We estimate that 790 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry 
would be affected by this proposed AD. We also estimate that it would 
take about one work hour per engine to perform the proposed actions, 
and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these 
figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to perform one 
inspection to U.S. operators to be $51,350.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed 
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Would 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 summary of the costs to comply with this proposal and 
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the 
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA 
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by 
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2004-19463; Directorate 
Identifier 2004-NE-14-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 
27, 2004.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-45A, 
CF6-50A, CF6-50C, and CF6-50E series turbofan engines that have not 
incorporated GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-50 S/B 72-1239, 
Revision 1, dated September 24, 2003, or that have not incorporated 
paragraph 3.B. of GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-1239, original issue, 
dated May 29, 2003. These engines are installed on, but not limited 
to, Boeing DC10 and 747 series airplanes, and Airbus Industrie A300 
series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of a stud that separated from 
a turbine mid frame (TMF) strut and from an updated analysis of 
strut stud failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent an 
uncontained failure of the engine and possible damage to the 
airplane caused by failure of TMF strut studs.

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.

Initial Inspection

    (f) Borescope-inspect the low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 1 
blades within 3,000 cycles-since-new (CSN), or 3,000 cycles-since-
replacement of the TMF strut studs, or 150 cycles-in-service (CIS) 
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Use 
paragraph 3.A.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE Alert 
Service Bulletin (ASB) No. CF6-50 S/B 72-A1251, dated September 24, 
2003, to do the inspection.
    (g) Replace any LPT module that has stage 1 LPT blade damage 
exceeding aircraft maintenance manual limits.

Repetitive Inspections

    (h) Borescope-inspect the LPT stage 1 blades within intervals of 
500 cycles-since-

[[Page 62625]]

last-inspection or within 500 cycles-since-last shop visit, or 
within 150 CIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
later. Use paragraph 3.A.(3) of the Accomplishment Instructions of 
GE ASB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-A1251, dated September 24, 2003 to do the 
inspections.
    (i) Replace any LPT module that has stage 1 LPT blade damage 
exceeding aircraft maintenance manual limits.

Optional Terminating Action

    (j) Engines incorporating GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-1239, Revision 
1, dated September 24, 2003, or incorporating paragraph 3.B. of GE 
SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-1239, original issue, dated May 29, 2003, ends 
the repetitive inspection requirements in paragraph (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (k) The Manager, Engine 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

    (l) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 21, 2004.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-24035 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P