Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 205

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$80,004, or $708 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is 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.

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:

99–27–10 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–11491. Docket 99–NM–222–AD.

Applicability: Model A310 and A300–600

series airplanes, certificated in any category;

except those on which Airbus Modifications

06267 and 07340 have been accomplished

during production.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (b) 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 the fire warning from

terminating prematurely, which could result

in an unnoticed, uncontained engine/

auxiliary power unit (APU) fire, accomplish

the following:

Modifications

(a) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, accomplish the wiring

modifications to the engine and APU fire

detection system in the relay box 282VU and

the electronics rack 90VU in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–26–2024,

Revision 04, dated March 5, 1999 (for Model

A310 series airplanes); or A300–26–6038,

dated March 5, 1999, or Revision 1, dated

September 8, 1999 (for Model A300–600

series airplanes); as applicable.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(c) 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

(d) The modifications shall be done in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–26–2024, Revision 04, dated March 5,

1999; Airbus Service Bulletin A300–26–6038,

dated March 5, 1999; or Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–26–6038, Revision 1, dated

September 8, 1999; 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 Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1999–238–

286(B), dated June 2, 1999.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

February 8, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 23, 1999.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–12 Filed 1–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–241–AD; Amendment

39–11486; AD 99–27–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767–200, –300, and –300F 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, –300, and –300F series airplanes,

that requires replacement of the

hydraulic reducer fitting in the return

port of the alternate brake selector valve

with a new restrictor fitting. This

amendment is prompted by a report

indicating that a brake housing had

fractured due to high loads associated

with brake vibration during landing gear

retraction, which allowed the torque rod

to swing free. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent failure

of the brake housing in the torque rod

region, which could reduce the braking

capability of the airplane and/or prevent

the extension of a main landing gear by

any method.

DATES: Effective February 8, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February 8,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

206 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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:

David Herron, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2672; fax (425) 227–1181.

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, –300, and –300F series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on August 4, 1998 (63 FR

41481). That action proposed to require

replacement of the hydraulic reducer

fitting in the return port of the alternate

brake selector valve with a new

restrictor fitting.

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.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter concurs with the

requirements of the proposed AD. The

Air Transport Association (ATA) of

America states that one of its members

does not currently operate any airplanes

affected by the proposed rule, and

another member has no objection to the

proposed rule.

Request To Revise the Discussion

Section

One commenter states that it does not

agree that the brake vibration is caused

by excessive flow of hydraulic fluid into

the alternate system metering valves

during gear retract braking, as described

in the Discussion section of the

proposed AD. The commenter contends

that the gear retract braking system,

common to Model 757, 747–400, and

777 series airplanes, and to Model 767

series airplanes equipped with steel

brakes, has demonstrated trouble-free

service experience in all of those

airplane models without brake

vibration. The brake vibration that has

occurred during gear retract braking on

Model 767 series airplanes equipped

with Boeing part number (P/N)

S160T300-series carbon brakes is

attributed to the friction-material

characteristics of the carbon brakes.

Reducing the brake-pressure onset rate

consistently reduces peak brake-torque

amplitudes and brake vibration levels,

when present.

The new carbon brake, Boeing P/N

S160T4000–210, for Model 767 series

airplanes, uses a new carbon heatsink

that has demonstrated extremely stable

dynamic characteristics during

laboratory and flight tests. Therefore,

replacement of the existing carbon

brakes, P/N S160T300-series, with the

new carbon brake will, in itself,

alleviate the high loads associated with

brake vibration, without replacing the

hydraulic restrictor fitting. The

commenter recommends revising the

Discussion section to read ‘‘Brake

vibration during gear retract braking can

be reduced on the existing carbon

brakes by reducing the hydraulic flow to

the brakes.’’

The FAA does not concur that the

cause of the brake vibration on Model

767–200, –300, and –300F series

airplanes is due to the brake material

and not the gear retract braking system.

In addition, it is not necessary to revise

the Discussion section, as that section

does not appear in the final rule.

Because the brake system comprises a

group of components that include the

brake friction material and gear retract

brakes, which are subsets of the brake

system, the FAA considers each

component to be a contributor to the

unsafe condition. Additionally, Boeing

Service Bulletin 767–32–0152, dated

June 6, 1996, and Revisions 1 and 2 of

that service bulletin, do not specify that

the cause of the vibration is the brake

material, but only that the vibration

occurs in airplanes equipped with

carbon brakes. In fact, the third

paragraph of the Summary section of

Revision 1 of the service bulletin states

that ‘‘Installation of the restrictor fitting

will reduce the flow into the alternatesystem metering valves during gear

retract braking. This will reduce peak

torque levels and vibration of the

landing gear during retract braking.’’

Request To Change the Applicability of

the Proposal

The commenter states that since the

brake vibration is associated only with

P/N S160T300-series carbon brakes, the

applicability of the AD should be

revised to read ‘‘Model 767–200, –300,

and 300F series airplanes equipped with

P/N S160T300-series carbon brakes;

certified in any category.’’ The FAA

infers that the commenter considers that

it is a combination of carbon brake

material and the excessive onset of

hydraulic pressure that results in the

unsafe condition; and that brakes

manufactured with a ceram-metallic

composite, while benefiting from the

change, do not exhibit the unsafe

condition the FAA seeks to correct

through the issuance of this AD.

The FAA concurs that the brake

vibration is associated only with

airplanes equipped with Boeing P/N

S160T300-series carbon brakes. The

FAA also agrees with the manufacturer

that including the specified part number

in the applicability of the final rule

correctly identifies those airplanes with

the unsafe condition, and has revised

the final rule accordingly. (The

applicability of this AD continues to

include the same airplanes ‘‘1 through

607 inclusive;’’ however, the term ‘‘line

positions,’’ which was used in the

proposed AD, has been changed to ‘‘line

numbers’’ in this AD.)

Request To Revise Certain Terminology

One commenter states that, with

reference to an alternative means

(method) of compliance (AMOC), an

‘‘equivalent’’ level of safety rather than

an ‘‘acceptable’’ level of safety should

be considered. The commenter provides

no justification for its request.

The FAA does not concur that the

level of safety should be specified as

‘‘equivalent’’ rather than ‘‘acceptable.’’

When considering any AMOC request,

the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office evaluates the request

and determines whether the proposed

AMOC request is acceptable (i.e.,

whether the proposed AMOC

adequately addresses the unsafe

condition). If so, the manager approves

the request, even if it is not technically

‘‘equivalent’’ to the method of

compliance required by the AD. No

change to the final rule is necessary.

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.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 373 Model

767–200, –300, and –300F series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

86 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 207

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

will cost approximately $104 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $29,584, or $344 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is 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.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects 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, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

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:

99–27–05 Boeing: Amendment 39–11486.

Docket 97–NM–241–AD.

Applicability: Model 767–200, –300, and

–300F series airplanes, line numbers 1

through 607 inclusive; equipped with part

number S160T300-series carbon brakes;

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 (b) 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 failure of the brake housing in

the torque rod region, which could reduce

the braking capability of the airplane and/or

prevent the extension of a main landing gear,

accomplish the following:

Replacement

(a) Within 360 days after the effective date

of this AD, replace the hydraulic reducer

fitting in the return port of the alternate brake

selector valve with a new restrictor fitting, in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

767–32–0152, dated June 6, 1996; Revision 1,

dated June 27, 1996; or Revision 2, dated July

10, 1997.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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,

Transport Airplane Directorate. 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) 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

(d) The replacement shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

767–32–0152, dated June 6, 1996; Boeing

Service Bulletin 767–32–0152, Revision 1,

dated June 27, 1996; or Boeing Service

Bulletin 767–32–0152, Revision 2, dated July

10, 1997. 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.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

February 8, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 22, 1999.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–11 Filed 1–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–31–AD; Amendment

39–11492; AD 99–27–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model BAC 1–11 200 and

400 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to to all British Aerospace

Model BAC 1–11 200 and 400 series

airplanes, that requires replacing the

thrust reverser control unit selector

valve with a new or modified valve and

inspecting for proper rigging of the

thrust reverser cable drums and thrust

reverser control unit selector valve

detent, and corrective actions, if

necessary. This amendment also

requires revising the Airplane Flight

Manual to provide the flight crew with

procedures to address uncontrolled

operation of the thrust reverser system.

This amendment is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to provide the flight crew with

procedures in the event of

uncommanded deployment of the thrust

reverser, and to prevent uncommanded

deployment of the thrust reverser in

flight or on the ground, which could

result in reduced controllability of the

airplane.