49798 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0682; Directorate 

Identifier 2001–NM–237–AD; Amendment 

39–16025; AD 2009–20–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 767–200 and –300 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Boeing Model 767– 

200 and –300 series airplanes, that 

requires replacing certain door-mounted 

escape slides and slide-raft assemblies 

with new slide-raft assemblies. This AD 

also requires the following actions, as 

applicable: replacing certain escape 

system latches with new latches; 

modifying or replacing certain 

counterbalance assemblies with new 

counterbalance assemblies; and 

adjusting the door counterbalance 

system. The actions specified by this AD 

are intended to prevent the escape 

slides and slide-rafts of the forward and 

mid-cabin entry and service doors from 

being too steep for evacuation in the 

event that the airplane rotates onto the 

aft fuselage into the extreme tip-back 

condition. In the extreme tip-back 

condition, the forward and mid-cabin 

exits could result in steeper sliding 

angles, which could cause injury to 

passengers and crewmembers during an 

emergency evacuation. This action is 

intended to address the identified 

unsafe condition. 

DATES: Effective November 3, 2009. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of November 

3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 

P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206– 

766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. This 

information may be examined at the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules 

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221 or 425–227– 

1152. 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Guion, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental 

Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6428; 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 certain Boeing 

Model 767–200 and –300 series 

airplanes was published as a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34233). 

That action proposed to require 

replacing certain door-mounted escape 

slides and slide-raft assemblies with 

new slide-raft assemblies; replacing 

certain escape system latches with new 

latches; and modifying or replacing 

certain counterbalance assemblies with 

new counterbalance assemblies; as 

applicable. The supplemental NPRM 

also proposed to extend the compliance 

time, add requirements to install a 

longer firing cable and test the valve of 

the inflation trigger system of the slideraft and, for certain airplanes, add 

procedures to adjust the door 

counterbalance systems. 

Explanation of Revised Service 

Information 

Since we issued the supplemental 

NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–25A0266, Revision 

3, dated July 3, 2008. We referred to 

Boeing Service Bulletin 767–25A0266, 

Revision 2, dated September 27, 2007, 

in the supplemental NPRM as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for replacing the slide-rafts. 

The procedures in Revision 2 and 

Revision 3 are essentially the same; 

however, Revision 3 corrects certain 

typographical errors, including certain 

part numbers for the slide-rafts. 

We have revised paragraph (a) of this 

AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 

767–25A0266, Revision 3, dated July 3, 

2008, as the appropriate source of 

service information. We have also 

included Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

25A0266, Revision 2, dated September 

27, 2007, in Table 1 of this AD to state 

that actions done before the effective 

date of this AD in accordance with 

Revision 2 are acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this AD. 

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. 

Requests To Withdraw Supplemental 

NPRM or Extend Compliance Time 

Air Transport Association (ATA), 

American Airlines, and Delta Airlines 

request that we either withdraw the 

supplemental NPRM or extend the 

compliance time for replacing the sliderafts. All Nippon Airways requests a 

compliance time of 8 years (96 months), 

and ATA requests a compliance time of 

10 years (120 months) rather than the 72 

months proposed in the supplemental 

NPRM. 

ATA also cites information to show 

the improbability of the unsafe 

condition, and maintains that we should 

withdraw the NPRM due to its lack of 

potential to add safety benefit, its 

significantly disproportional costs, its 

unjustified compliance period, and the 

fact that the intent of the proposal is 

already being accomplished on an 

attrition basis. ATA also states that if 

the FAA disagrees with its justifications 

and proceeds with the final rule, it 

recommends a 10-year compliance 

period for better correlation with riskmanagement methods. 

American Airlines and ATA further 

object to the requirement to replace the 

slide-rafts. They agree with the 

manufacturer that the unsafe condition 

specified in the supplemental NPRM is 

not a safety issue. American Airlines 

and ATA state that the likelihood that 

the scenario described in the 

supplemental NPRM would result in a 

time-limited evacuation is extremely 

improbable. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters. We do not agree with the 

requests to withdraw the supplemental 

NPRM. We have determined that an 

unsafe condition exists. Although the 

specific conditions addressed in the 

supplemental NPRM have not been 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49799 

encountered in service, we have 

received reports of partial tip-back 

during accidents/incidents that could 

have resulted in extreme tip-back given 

slightly different conditions, making 

this type of event foreseeable. During at 

least one of these partial tip-back events, 

the slides were deployed to facilitate 

evacuation. We do not agree that the 

low probability of encountering such a 

foreseeable event is justification to 

withdraw the supplemental NPRM. We 

have also determined that an interval 

based on the ‘‘useful service life’’ of the 

slides, which is 15 years, would not 

address the unsafe condition in a timely 

manner. 

However, we do agree that it is 

appropriate to extend the compliance 

time. We have determined that a 

compliance time of 96 months 

represents an appropriate interval of 

time in which the required actions can 

be performed, while still maintaining an 

adequate level of safety. In developing 

an appropriate compliance time, we 

considered the safety implications, parts 

availability, and normal maintenance 

schedules for timely accomplishment of 

the modifications. We also considered 

the costs to comply with the actions (see 

updated cost information in the Costs of 

Compliance section). The revised 

compliance time will allow operators to 

offset the costs of complying with this 

AD with the costs associated with 

normal slide replacement. Therefore, we 

have revised paragraph (a) of this AD to 

extend the compliance time for 

replacing the slide-rafts from 72 months 

to 96 months. 

Requests To Remove Firing Cable 

Requirement From the Supplemental 

NPRM 

Continental Airlines, Goodrich, and 

Boeing ask that we remove paragraph 

(b), ‘‘Modification of the Firing Cable,’’ 

from the supplemental NPRM. Delta 

points out that the requirement to 

modify the firing cable is proposed in 

Docket FAA–2008–0302 (and is now 

required by AD 2008–21–05, 

amendment 39–15689 (73 FR 59486, 

October 9, 2008)) at a compliance time 

of 36 months rather than the 72 months 

proposed in the supplemental NPRM. 

Boeing states that we should also 

remove the reference to Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–25A0395, dated 

August 31, 2006, from Table 1 ‘‘Previous 

Revisions of Service Bulletins,’’ because 

that service bulletin relates to the 

modification specified in paragraph (b) 

of the supplemental NPRM. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

requests to remove paragraph (b) of the 

supplemental NPRM and the reference 

to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

25A0395, dated August 31, 2006. The 

requirement to modify the firing cable is 

already included in AD 2008–21–05. 

Therefore, we have revised this AD as 

requested. The requirement to modify 

the firing cable will remain part of AD 

2008–21–05, which also includes other 

tasks related to the firing cable. 

Requests To Revise Cost Impact 

Goodrich, and ATA, on behalf of its 

member American Airlines, request that 

we revise the ‘‘Cost Impact’’ paragraph. 

American Airlines states that we did not 

include the cost of the slide-rafts in the 

original NPRM; as the slide-rafts are the 

dominant cost of the modification, ATA 

and American Airlines state that the 

cost estimate is both incomplete and 

inaccurate. Goodrich points out that the 

costs in the supplemental NPRM reflect 

prices for 2004 and requests that we 

revise the cost of the slide-rafts to 2008 

prices. 

We agree with Goodrich to revise the 

cost of the slide-rafts to reflect 2008 

prices. The ‘‘Cost Impact’’ paragraph 

below includes the current price of the 

slide-rafts. We acknowledge American 

Airlines’ request, but point out that 

although the original NPRM did not 

include the cost of the slide-rafts, the 

supplemental NPRM did include those 

costs. 

Request To Change Applicability 

Boeing requests that we change the 

applicability of the supplemental NPRM 

to refer to airplanes identified in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–25A0266, Revision 

3, dated July 3, 2008, rather than 

referring only to those Model 767–200 

and –300 series airplanes that have line 

numbers 1 through 793 inclusive, 

equipped with door-mounted escape 

slide systems. Boeing states that the 

applicability, as written in the 

supplemental NPRM, might make an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) request necessary for Model 

767 door-mounted escape system part 

numbers that are not addressed by the 

proposed AD. 

We agree with Boeing for the reasons 

stated, and have revised the 

applicability statement of this AD to 

include a reference to Boeing Service 

Bulletin 767–25A0266, Revision 3, 

dated July 3, 2008, which includes 

specific details about which airplanes 

are affected by this AD. 

Requests To Extend Comment Period 

Delta Airlines and ATA request 

additional time to review the 

supplemental NPRM. Delta requests that 

we extend the comment period for an 

additional 60 days because of the 

complex nature of the supplemental 

NPRM, the inclusion of multiple service 

bulletins, the extensive background and 

significant number of comments in 

response to the original NPRM, the 

hugely significant costs, and the fact 

that the original NPRM was thought to 

have been withdrawn. ATA also 

requests an extension of 60 days to the 

comment period, citing costs and the 

need to assess the complex 

requirements. 

We disagree with the requests to 

provide additional time to comment on 

the supplemental NPRM. As Delta 

points out in their comment, there was 

a period of 4.5 years between the release 

of the original NPRM and the 

supplemental NPRM, which gave 

operators sufficient time to consider the 

requirements. We have not changed the 

AD in this regard. 

Request for Industry-Wide Response 

Delta Airlines requests that ATA 

coordinate an industry-wide response to 

the supplemental NPRM with the goal 

of gathering enough technical 

information to support its cancellation. 

Delta states that, given previous 

discussions with Boeing regarding risk 

and probability, the supplemental 

NPRM does not appear to have adequate 

merit. Also, given the significant cost 

impact, the industry would be wellserved by opening the time to conduct 

a coordinated effort to ensure that the 

action proposed in the supplemental 

NPRM is not mandated. 

We neither agree nor disagree with 

the request for ATA to coordinate an 

industry-wide response. This comment 

is directed to ATA and is beyond the 

scope of the AD action. We disagree that 

the supplemental NPRM does not have 

adequate merit. We consider the 

proposed actions to be an adequate 

response to an unsafe condition. As 

stated previously, although the specific 

conditions addressed in the 

supplemental NPRM have not been 

encountered, there have been accidents/ 

incidents that make this type of event 

foreseeable. We do not agree that the 

low probability of encountering such a 

foreseeable event is justification for 

withdrawing the supplemental NPRM. 

Therefore, we have not changed the AD 

in this regard. 

As explained previously, we also 

considered the costs to comply with the 

actions proposed in the supplemental 

NPRM. While we determined that a 

compliance time based on the ‘‘useful 

service life’’ of the slides would not 

address the unsafe condition in a timely 

manner, we did agree to extend the 

compliance time for replacing the sliderafts from 72 months to 96 months. The 

revised compliance time will allow 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
49800 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

operators to offset the costs of 

complying with this AD with the costs 

associated with normal slide 

replacement. We have revised paragraph 

(a) of this AD to extend the compliance 

time for replacing the slide-rafts from 72 

months to 96 months. 

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 changes 

previously described. The FAA has 

determined that these changes will 

neither increase the economic burden 

on any operator nor increase the scope 

of the AD. 

Cost Impact 

There are approximately 745 

airplanes of the affected design in the 

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 

261 airplanes of U.S. registry are 

affected by this AD. The work hours and 

required parts per airplane vary 

according to the configuration group to 

which the affected airplane belongs. The 

average labor rate is $80 per work hour. 

The ‘‘Cost Impact per Airplane 

Configuration Group’’ table shows the 

estimated costs. 

COST IMPACT PER AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION GROUP

Airplane configuration group U.S.-registered 

airplanes Work hours Kit cost Slide cost Cost per airplane 

Fleet cost, by 

configuration 

group 

1 ........................... 208 6 $1,236 $222,002 $223,718 $46,533,334 

2 ........................... 12 12 2,472 448,502 451,934 5,423,208 

3 ........................... 41 11 98,858 222,002 321,740 13,191,340 

4 ........................... 0 11 34,012 222,002 256,894 0 

5 ........................... 0 17 35,248 448,502 485,110 0 

Based on the figures in the ‘‘Cost 

Impact per Airplane Configuration 

Group’’ table, the cost impact of this AD 

on U.S. operators is estimated to be 

$65,147,882. 

The cost impact figures discussed 

above are 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. 

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 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 

■ 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

2009–20–02 Boeing: Amendment 39–16025. 

Docket No. FAA–2008–0682; Directorate 

Identifier 2001–NM–237–AD. 

Applicability: Model 767–200 and –300 

series airplanes, line numbers 1 through 793 

inclusive; certificated in any category; 

equipped with door-mounted escape slide 

systems; as identified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 767–25A0266, Revision 3, dated July 

3, 2008. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent the escape slides and slide-rafts 

of the forward and mid-cabin entry and 

service doors from being too steep for 

evacuation in the event that the airplane 

rotates onto the aft fuselage into the extreme 

tip-back condition, accomplish the following: 

Replacement of Slide-Rafts 

(a) Within 96 months after the effective 

date of this AD, replace the applicable sliderafts at the applicable door or doors, and do 

all other applicable actions including, but not 

limited to, changing the latches, and 

replacing or modifying the counterbalance 

assemblies, by accomplishing all applicable 

actions specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions in Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

25A0266, Revision 3, dated July 3, 2008. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously 

(b) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with the service 

bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD are 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49801 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of this AD. 

Boeing Service Bulletin Revision level Date 

Alert Service Bulletin 767–25A0266 ............................................................................................................ 1 December 4, 2006. 

Alert Service Bulletin 767–25A0266 ............................................................................................................ 2 September 27, 2007. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(c)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Andrew Guion, 

Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and 

Environmental Systems Branch, ANM–150S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6428; fax 

(425) 917–6590. Or, e-mail information to 

9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Incorporation by Reference 

(d) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

767–25A0266, Revision 3, dated July 3, 2008, 

to do the actions required by this AD, unless 

the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference 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: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_

locations.html. 

Effective Date 

(e) This amendment becomes effective on 

November 3, 2009. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 11, 2009. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–22668 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0574; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–028–AD; Amendment 

39–16030; AD 2009–20–07] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER 

LUFTAHRT GmbH Models Dornier 228– 

100, Dornier 228–101, Dornier 228–200, 

Dornier 228–201, and Dornier 228–202 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued 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: 

A stub axle failure of the main landing gear 

on a Dornier 228–200 aeroplane was reported 

to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations revealed 

that the fracture of the axle—manufacturer 

Part Number (P/N) A–511000B28B was due 

to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two 

failures of P/N A–511000B28B axles 

occurred. Those events led in 1994 the 

Luftfahrt-Bundesamt—Germany’s National 

Aviation Authority—to publish 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) D–1994–042 to 

mandate the replacement of A–511000B28B 

axles by improved-design axle with P/N A– 

511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH 

Service bulletin 228–214). 

It is believed that a misinterpretation of the 

Dornier 228 repair/maintenance 

documentation caused inadvertent 

installation of A–511000B28B axle on the 

accident aeroplane’s main landing gear with 

P/N A–511000C00F. This configuration was 

not approved for installation and was 

therefore not addressed by LBA AD D–1994– 

042 or Dornier SB–228–214. 

The actions specified in this Airworthiness 

Directive are intended to prevent main 

landing gear failure, which could result in 

loss of control of the aeroplane during 

landing operations. 

We are issuing this AD to require 

actions to correct the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 3, 2009. 

On November 3, 2009, the Director of 

the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this AD. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4130; fax: (816) 

329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on June 25, 2009 (74 FR 30247). 

That NPRM proposed to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

A stub axle failure of the main landing gear 

on a Dornier 228–200 aeroplane was reported 

to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations revealed 

that the fracture of the axle—manufacturer 

Part Number (P/N) A–511000B28B was due 

to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two 

failures of P/N A–511000B28B axles 

occurred. Those events led in 1994 the 

Luftfahrt-Bundesamt—Germany’s National 

Aviation Authority—to publish 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) D–1994–042 to 

mandate the replacement of A–511000B28B 

axles by improved-design axle with P/N 

A–511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH 

Service bulletin 228–214). 

It is believed that a misinterpretation of the 

Dornier 228 repair/maintenance 

documentation caused inadvertent 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES