4482 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

submitted, the application must include the 

report and any updates to the generic DCD. 

b. During the interval from the date of 

application for a license to the date the 

Commission makes its findings under 10 CFR 

52.103(g), the report must be submitted semiannually. Updates to the plant-specific DCD 

must be submitted annually and may be 

submitted along with amendments to the 

application. 

c. After the Commission has made its 

finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the reports 

and updates to the plant-specific DCD must 

be submitted, along with updates to the sitespecific portion of the final safety analysis 

report for the facility, at the intervals 

required by 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2) and 

50.71(e)(4), respectively, or at shorter 

intervals as specified in the license. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of January 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06–788 Filed 1–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20034; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–178–AD; Amendment 

39–14463; AD 2006–02–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, 

DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–

10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–

40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, 

and MD–11F Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

McDonnell Douglas transport category 

airplanes. This AD requires doing 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

accumulation of debris (blockage) in the 

drain holes of the pitot tubes, and 

cleaning the hole if any evidence of 

debris is found. This AD results from 

reports of blocked drain holes of the 

pitot tubes. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent blocked drain holes of the pitot 

tubes, which could result in the 

accumulation of water in the pitot-static 

system and consequent failure of that 

system. Failure of the pitot-static system 

could result in erroneous airspeed 

indications in the cockpit and 

consequent loss of airspeed control. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

March 3, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 

SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for service information 

identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5350; 

fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (AD) docket on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility office 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket Management Facility office 

(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain McDonnell Douglas 

Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–

15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A 

and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, 

MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and 

MD–11F airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 12, 2005 (70 FR 2062). That 

NPRM proposed to require doing 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

accumulation of debris (blockage) of the 

drain holes of the pitot tubes, and 

cleaning the hole if any evidence of 

debris is found. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Support for the NPRM 

One commenter supports the NPRM. 

Requests To Extend Repetitive Interval 

Three commenters request that the 

650-flight-hour interval for the 

repetitive detailed inspections in 

paragraph (f) of the NPRM be increased. 

One commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, states that it originally 

recommended an interval of 650 flight 

hours because that was believed to be 

greater than the A-check interval in use 

at that time. The commenter points out 

that an A-check for some operators is 

now approaching 1,000 flight hours and 

recommends that interval. The 

commenter also states that inspection 

data, which cover as much as ten years, 

show that there have been no findings 

of blockage of the holes of the pitot tube 

drain tube since implementation of 

repetitive inspections. 

A second commenter states that it has 

performed the proposed repetitive 

inspections on its fleet every 2,000 flight 

hours since July 1999. The results of an 

analysis conducted by the commenter 

revealed no events of all three pitot tube 

drains being blocked and only two 

events where the drain holes on one of 

the three pitot tubes were blocked. 

Based on this service history, the 

commenter does not support a repetitive 

interval of less than 2,000 flight hours. 

A third commenter states that an 

interval shorter than an A-check would 

require operators to perform the 

proposed visual and forced-air 

inspections during turnaround of the 

airplane. The commenter’s normal 

turnaround time is 2 hours. The 

commenter further states that the 

proposed visual and forced air 

inspections take at least one hour, and 

that it takes at least an additional 20 

minutes for the pitot probes to cool 

down. In addition, the commenter states 

that its airplanes have never had 

blockage through calcium build-up; 

however, it has heard from other 

operators that calcium blockage takes 

more than a year to build up. Therefore, 

the commenter concludes that it would 

be costly to do the proposed inspections 

during a turnaround and suggests an 

interval of at least 850 flight hours, 

preferably 1,000 flight hours. 

We agree that the repetitive 

inspection interval can be extended 

somewhat. Since issuance of the NPRM, 

we have analyzed further in-service data 

from the airplane manufacturer and 

failure rate data for a blocked pitot tube 

from DC–10, MD–10, and MD–11 

service history, which included 22 

reported events. 

The airplane manufacturer performed 

an analysis using four maintenance 

intervals: 650, 700, 1,000, and 1,500 

flight hours. The results of the analysis 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4483 

predicted the expected number of 

occurrences of a single blocked pitot 

tube and the expected number of 

occurrences of multiple blocked pitot 

tubes, assuming the blockage occurred 

as a random event. Based on the results 

of this analysis, the calculated 

probability of multiple blocked pitot 

tubes within the four maintenance 

intervals was documented. The airplane 

manufacturer assumed that treating the 

blockage as a random event would 

address a slow blockage build-up, such 

as calcium build-up, but would not 

adequately address foreign object 

blockage. Furthermore, it was noted 

that, if the right environmental 

conditions are present, such as flying 

through a bug storm, a large blockage of 

more than one pitot tube could occur 

within a maintenance interval 

established solely based on a slow 

blockage build-up. 

Based on the results of the airplane 

manufacturer’s analysis, we determined 

that we cannot rely on the random event 

analysis, alone, to determine a 

minimum, safe maintenance interval. As 

a result, we assessed additional safety 

margins to account for the non-random 

large blockage events and determined 

that a maintenance interval of more than 

1,000 flight hours would result in an 

unacceptable risk of additional 

occurrences of multiple blocked pitot 

tubes. Therefore, we have made a 

change to the final rule to increase the 

repetitive time interval to 1,000 flight 

hours. 

Request To Delete Forced-Air Check 

One commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, requests that the forcedair check in paragraph (h) of the NPRM 

be deleted. The commenter states that it 

is unsure that the forced-air check 

provides a benefit, and that there is a 

potential for damaging the air data 

equipment if the system were to be 

overpressurized during the test 

procedure. 

We agree. Although the forced-air 

check is intended to provide additional 

assurance that any microscopic debris is 

cleared from the drain holes of the pitot 

tubes, the airplane manufacturer is 

aware of in-service reports or incident 

data indicating that the forced-air check 

has caused damage to air data 

equipment on airplanes. Therefore, we 

have made a change to the final rule to 

remove the forced-air check. 

Request To Revise Reference to 

Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 

One commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, requests that the 

reference to Chapter 34–11–02 of the 

AMM specified in paragraph (j) of the 

NPRM (re-designated as paragraph (h) in 

final rule) be revised to Chapter 34–11. 

The commenter states that Chapter 34–

11–02 is correct for Model DC–10–10, 

DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–

10–30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10–

40, DC–10–40F, MD–10–10F, and MD–

10–30F airplanes, but Chapter 34–11–01 

is correct for Model MD–11 and MD–

11F airplanes. 

We partially agree. We do not agree to 

reference Chapter 34–11 because that 

reference is too general. However, we 

will revise paragraph (h) of the AD to 

refer to the correct chapter for the 

affected airplane models as indicated by 

the commenter. 

Request To Change Reference to Special 

Compliance Item (SCI) 

One commenter requests that Boeing 

SCI 34–2 be approved as an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) in the 

NPRM. The commenter believes that the 

current Boeing MD–11 Time Controlled 

Task Card, developed per Boeing SCI 

34–2, provides an equivalent level of 

safety and complies with the intent of 

the NPRM. 

We do not agree. We have determined 

that Boeing SCI 34–2 is not reasonably 

available to all operators and the public 

like most Boeing service bulletins 

referenced in ADs are. Therefore, we 

have determined that incorporating by 

reference that service document in this 

AD would be inappropriate. However, 

under the provisions of paragraph (i) of 

this AD, we may consider requests for 

approval of such an AMOC. 

Clarification of AMOC Paragraph 

We have revised this action to clarify 

the appropriate procedure for notifying 

the principal inspector before using any 

approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD with the changes described 

previously. We have determined that 

these changes will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 314 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

This AD will affect about 216 airplanes 

of U.S. registry. The required 

inspections will take about 2 work 

hours per airplane, at an average labor 

rate of $65 per work hour. Based on 

these figures, the estimated cost of the 

AD for U.S. operators is $28,080, or 

$130 per airplane, per inspection cycle. 

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 Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4484 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2006–02–11 McDonnell Douglas: 

Amendment 39–14463. Docket No. 

FAA–2005–20034; Directorate Identifier 

2004–NM–178–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective March 3, 

2006. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–

10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A and 

KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, MD–10–

10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and MD–11F 

airplanes; certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

blocked drain holes of the pitot tubes. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent blocked drain 

holes of the pitot tubes, which could result 

in the accumulation of water in the pitotstatic system and consequent failure of that 

system. Failure of the pitot-static system 

could result in erroneous airspeed 

indications in the cockpit and consequent 

loss of airspeed control. 

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. 

Repetitive Inspections 

(f) Within 90 days after the effective date 

of this AD, do a detailed inspection for 

accumulation of debris (blockage) in the 

drain holes of the pitot tubes in accordance 

with paragraph (g) of this AD. Repeat the 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 1,000 flight hours. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is ‘‘an intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirrors magnifying 

lenses, etc. may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Visual Check 

(g) Do a visual check in accordance with 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD. 

The visual check must be done by 

certificated maintenance personnel. 

(1) Make certain that the pitot heat is off 

and the pitot tubes are not hot. 

Note 2: Caution. Exercise care in checking 

pitot tubes to prevent severe burns to your 

hands. 

(2) Attempt to look through the left and 

right drain holes of each pitot tube. 

(3) Make sure that ambient light (or 

flashlight) is visible through both drain holes 

of each pitot tube. 

Corrective Action 

(h) If any evidence of drain hole blockage 

is found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD, before further 

flight, clean the hole in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA. Chapter 34–11–02 of the Boeing DC–10 

or MD–10 Airplane Maintenance Manual is 

one approved method for Model DC–10–10, 

DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–

30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–

10–40F, MD–10–10F, and MD–10–30F 

airplanes; as applicable. Chapter 34–11–01 of 

the applicable Boeing MD–11 Airplane 

Maintenance Manual is one approved 

method for Model MD–11 and MD–11F 

airplanes. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(j) None. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

19, 2006. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–734 Filed 1–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–23703; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–052–AD; Amendment 

39–14465; AD 2006–03–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 airplanes. 

This AD requires, when certain 

SmartProbes are installed, revising the 

Limitations section of the airplane flight 

manual to limit the maximum take-off 

weight of the airplane and increase the 

reference speed during certain landing 

conditions. This AD results from reports 

of variable calibration values of certain 

sensors of the SmartProbes, which could 

result in the transmission of erroneous 

information to the air data system. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent reduced 

controllability of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

February 13, 2006. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by March 28, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

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. 

• 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. 

Contact Empresa Brasileira de 

Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 

343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos 

Campos—SP, Brazil, for service 

information identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1175; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The Departmento de Aviacao Civil 

(DAC), which is the airworthiness 

authority for Brazil, notified us that an 

unsafe condition may exist on all 

EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. 

Certain Air Data SmartProbes that may 

be installed on these airplanes have 

been reported to be contaminated. A 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES