[Federal Register: October 31, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 211)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62029-62031]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31oc03-17]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2001-NM-321-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-
2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposal would
require repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper and lower web
of the engine support beam at fuselage station 640, and repair if
necessary. This proposal also would provide an optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. This action is necessary to
prevent failure of the engine support beam, a principal structural
element, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe
condition.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 1, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-321-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232.
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must
contain ``Docket No. 2001-NM-321-AD'' in the subject line and need not
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or
ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box
6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. This
information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley
Stream, New York.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New
York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7521; fax (516) 568-2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
[sbull] Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
[sbull] For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed
AD is being requested.
[sbull] Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each
request.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 2001-NM-321-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped
and returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 2001-NM-321-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness
authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may
exist on certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100
& 440) airplanes. TCCA advises that cracks have been found on the upper
and lower web of the engine support beam (ESB) at fuselage station (FS)
640 on several airplanes. The subject airplanes had more than 19,000
flight hours and 16,000 flight cycles. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in failure of the ESB, a principal structural
element, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A601R-53-059, Revision
``D,'' dated July 2, 2003; including Appendix A, undated; and Appendix
B, dated August 6, 2002. That service bulletin describes procedures for
performing repetitive external detailed visual inspections for cracking
of the upper and lower web of the ESB at FS 640. The service bulletin
specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions for any
cracking that is found. That service bulletin also describes procedures
for modifying the ESB to increase the thickness of the upper and lower
webs and to install new angles and intercostals. The procedures for the
modification also include an eddy current inspection for damage (e.g.,
cracking) of the fastener holes in the
[[Page 62030]]
flanges that attach the upper and lower forward angles to the upper and
lower webs, and repair (oversizing the fastener holes to remove damage)
if necessary. This modification, if accomplished, eliminates the need
for the repetitive inspections described previously.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is
intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. TCCA
classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Canadian
airworthiness directive CF-2001-26R1, dated September 20, 2002, to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.
FAA's Conclusions
These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of
the repetitive inspections specified in the service bulletin described
previously, except as discussed below. The proposed AD also provides
for accomplishing the modification specified in the service bulletin
described previously, as an optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously, except as discussed below under the heading ``Difference
Between Proposed AD, Referenced Service Bulletin, and TCCA
Airworthiness Directive.''
Consistent with the findings of TCCA, the proposed AD would allow
repetitive inspections per Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of
the service bulletin to continue in lieu of requiring accomplishment of
the terminating action per Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of
the service bulletin. In making this determination, we considered that
long-term continued operational safety in this case will be adequately
ensured by repetitive inspections to detect any cracking of the upper
and lower web of the ESB at FS 640 before such cracking represents a
hazard to the airplane.
Difference Between Proposed AD, Referenced Service Bulletin, and TCCA
Airworthiness Directive
Although the Canadian airworthiness directive specifies that it
applies to airplanes having serial numbers 7003 through 7067 inclusive,
7069 through 7208 inclusive, 7210 through 7759 inclusive, and 7761
through 7782 inclusive; this proposed AD would apply to airplanes
having serial numbers 7003 through 7067 inclusive, and 7069 through
7782 inclusive. This applicability matches the effectivity listing of
Revision ``D'' of the service bulletin.
Although the service bulletin and the Canadian airworthiness
directive specify that operators may contact the manufacturer for
disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would
require operators to repair those conditions per a method approved by
either the FAA or TCCA (or its delegated agent). In light of the type
of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and
consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have
determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by either the
FAA or TCCA would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD.
Operators also should note that the Accomplishment Instructions of
the referenced service bulletin describe procedures for completing a
comment sheet related to service bulletin quality, a sheet recording
compliance with the service bulletin, and an inspection results
reporting form (located in Appendix A of the service bulletin). The
Canadian airworthiness directive also specifies to report inspection
results to the airplane manufacturer. This proposed AD would not
require those actions. We do not need this information from operators.
Cost Impact
We estimate that 150 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected
by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish
the proposed inspection, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $9,750, or $65 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed 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.
The optional terminating action, if done, would take approximately
290 work hours, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required
parts would be provided by the manufacturer at no charge. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the optional terminating action
to be $18,850 per airplane.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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) if promulgated, 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 copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
[[Page 62031]]
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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket 2001-NM-321-AD.
Applicability: Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes; serial numbers 7003 through 7067 inclusive, and 7069
through 7782 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the engine support beam (ESB), a principal
structural element, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:
Service Bulletin References
(a) The following information pertains to the service bulletin
referenced in this AD:
(1) The term ``service bulletin'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A601R-53-059, Revision ``D,'' dated July 2, 2003; excluding Appendix
A, undated; and including Appendix B, dated August 6, 2002.
(2) Although the service bulletin specifies to complete a
comment sheet related to service bulletin quality, a sheet recording
compliance with the service bulletin, and an inspection results
reporting form (located in Appendix A of the service bulletin), and
submit this information to the manufacturer, this AD does not
include such a requirement.
Repetitive Inspections
(b) Perform an external detailed inspection for cracking of the
upper and lower web of the ESB at fuselage station (FS) 640,
according to Part A of the service bulletin. Do the initial
inspection at the time specified in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 740 flight cycles.
(1) For airplanes with 7,500 total flight cycles or less as of
the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection prior to
the accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles.
(2) For airplanes with 7,501 total flight cycles or more, but
11,750 total flight cycles or less, as of the effective date of this
AD: Do the initial inspection prior to the accumulation of 12,000
total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever is first.
(3) For airplanes with 11,751 total flight cycles or more as of
the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection within 250
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage,
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate
access procedures may be required.''
Repair
(c) If any crack is found during any inspection performed per
paragraph (b) of this AD: Before further flight, repair per a method
approved by either the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its
delegated agent).
Optional Terminating Action
(d) Modification of the ESB by accomplishing all actions in
paragraphs 2.D. and 2.E., and in steps (1) through (40) inclusive of
paragraph 2.F., of the service bulletin (including an eddy current
inspection for damage (e.g., cracking) of the fastener holes in the
flanges that attach the upper and lower forward angles to the upper
and lower webs; and repair (oversizing the fastener holes to remove
damage), if necessary) constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (b) of this AD. Any
required repair must be accomplished before further flight.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, New York ACO,
is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this
AD.
Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed in Canadian
airworthiness directive CF-2001-26R1, dated September 20, 2002.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 27, 2003.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-27426 Filed 10-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P