Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21855

‘‘Required Performance Corrections in

Section 4A or 4B must be applied as

applicable.’’

New Requirements of this AD

AFM Revision: Performance Section 4A or

4B

(b) For airplanes with Pratt & Whitney

Model PW4460 or PW4462 engines with

FB2B fan blades installed: Within 30 days

after the effective date of this AD, revise the

Performance Section of the FAA-approved

AFM to include the following information

under Section 4A or 4B, as applicable. This

may be accomplished by inserting a copy of

this AD into the AFM.

‘‘When operating with one PW4460 engine,

one PW4462 engine (operated at PW4460

thrust rating), or one PW4462 engine

installed, apply the following performance

corrections:

Weight must be reduced by:

Takeoff—1.3%

Enroute—2.5%

Landing—1.3%

When operating with more than one

PW4460 engine and/or PW4462 engine

(operated at PW4460 thrust rating), or more

than one PW4462 engine installed, apply the

following performance corrections:

Weight must be reduced by:

Takeoff—2.5%

Enroute—2.5%

Landing—2.5%.’’

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Operations Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) 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.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

May 17, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10723 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–124–AD; Amendment

39–12206; AD 2001–09–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 757–200 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 757–

200 and –300 series airplanes, that

requires repetitive clearing of the drain

passage at the aft end of the main

landing gear (MLG) truck beam to

ensure moisture and contaminants

within the truck beam can properly

drain; and, for certain airplanes, an

internal inspection of the truck beam to

detect discrepancies, and follow-on

actions. This amendment is prompted

by reports of fracture of MLG truck

beams. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent stress corrosion

cracking, leading to fracture of a MLG

truck beam during ground operations,

which could result in either reduced

controllability of the airplane or a fire.

DATES: Effective June 6, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 6,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

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:

Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2776; 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 757–200 and

–300 series airplanes was published as

a supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on September 18, 2000 (65 FR

56268). That action proposed to require

repetitive clearing of the drain passage

at the aft end of the main landing gear

(MLG) truck beam to ensure moisture

and contaminants within the truck beam

can properly drain. That action also

proposed to expand the applicability,

and, for certain airplanes, add a new

inspection and follow-on actions.

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.

Reference Revised Service Bulletins

One commenter asks that the FAA

revise the supplemental NPRM to

reference Revision 1 of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletins 757–32A0135 and

757–32A0138, both dated November 30,

2000. The proposed rule referenced

Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757–

32A0135 (for Model 757–200 series

airplanes) and 757–32A0138 (for Model

757–300 series airplanes), both dated

June 8, 2000, as the appropriate sources

of service information for certain

proposed actions. The commenter states

that the service bulletins have been

revised for clarification, based on

questions received from operators.

We concur with the commenter’s

request. Since the issuance of the

proposed rule, the FAA has reviewed

and approved Revision 1 of the service

bulletins. Revision 1 clarifies certain

instructions and revises the effectivity

listing to show changes in airplane

operators. (No additional airplanes are

added to the effectivity listing of

Revision 1.) Therefore, we have revised

the applicability statement and

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this final rule

to reference Revision 1 of the service

bulletins as the appropriate source of

service information for the actions

required by those paragraphs. We also

have revised Notes 2 and 3 to state that

accomplishment of the actions required

by this AD in accordance with the

original issue of the service bulletins is

acceptable for compliance with

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this final rule.

Change Certain Wording in Paragraphs

(a) and (b)

Two commenters ask that the wording

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed

rule, which specifies ‘‘* * * since the

date of manufacture of the MLG * * *,’’

be changed to read ‘‘* * * since the

date of delivery of the airplane or since

21856 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

date of installation for new replacement

truck beams installed after airplane

delivery * * *.’’ The commenters state

that exposure to a typical service

environment does not occur until after

the airplane is delivered. This is

because the airplane is maintained in a

controlled environment and the landing

gear is not exposed to the harsh

conditions of in-service landing gear, so

no degradation of protective finishes

would be expected prior to delivery.

One commenter notes that the landing

gear manufacturing date will normally

precede airplane delivery by several

months (and could be much longer for

replacement truck beams), and the

manufacturer does not typically provide

the landing gear date of manufacture to

the operators. If the date of manufacture

is used as the basis for determining the

inspection threshold, the manufacturer

will be required to research and compile

the data for distribution to operators.

Operators could be required to comply

months earlier than intended, as the

service bulletins referenced in the

proposed rule specify airplane age,

which is normally based on delivery

date. Specifying the airplane delivery

date, or date of installation of new

replacement truck beams as the basis for

determining the compliance threshold

will simplify determination of the

threshold for each affected airplane. The

operators will already have delivery or

installation dates in their records, and

will not have to rely on the

manufacturer to provide additional

information.

We concur with the commenters’

requests. We agree that exposure to a

typical service environment does not

occur until after the airplane is

delivered to the original operator,

because the airplane is maintained in a

controlled environment and the landing

gear is not exposed to the harsh

conditions of in-service landing gear, as

the commenter states. Additionally,

specifying a compliance time of within

a certain number of years since the date

of airplane delivery or since the date of

installation of new replacement truck

beams will allow operators easy access

to the data necessary for determining

when the clearing procedure should be

done. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the final

rule have been changed accordingly.

Change Various Sections

One commenter asks for the following

changes:

1. Replace the term ‘‘MLG,’’ as

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the

proposed rule, with ‘‘MLG truck beam’’

throughout the proposed rule. The

commenter states that this would

specify the exact component affected by

the proposal and allow additional

compliance time for units having the

MLG truck beam replaced with an

overhauled unit separately from the

MLG assembly.

We concur. The term ‘‘MLG’’ has been

changed throughout the final rule to the

term, ‘‘MLG truck beam.’’ Specifying the

component instead of the entire MLG

assembly allows additional time for

compliance when the existing MLG

truck beam is replaced with a new or

overhauled truck beam, apart from the

MLG assembly.

2. Replace the phrase ‘‘Overhaul of

the MLG truck beam prior to the

effective date of this AD * * *,’’ as

specified in Note 3 of the proposed rule,

with ‘‘Overhaul of the MLG truck beam

prior to the compliance time of this AD

* * *.’’ This is to allow credit to be

taken for MLG assemblies overhauled

and installed within the AD compliance

time.

We partially concur with the

commenter. We do not concur that the

phrase ‘‘Overhaul of the MLG truck

beam prior to the effective date of this

AD,’’ as specified in Note 3 of the final

rule, be replaced with ‘‘Overhaul of the

MLG truck beam prior to the

compliance time of this AD.’’ Note 3

gives operators credit for overhaul of the

MLG truck beam prior to the effective

date of the AD, in accordance with the

original service bulletin. However, we

do concur that the commenter be given

credit for MLG assemblies overhauled

and installed within the AD compliance

time. However, the FAA notes that

operators are always given credit for

work accomplished previously if the

work is performed in accordance with

the existing AD by means of the phrase

in the compliance section of the AD that

states, ‘‘Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.’’

Another commenter asks that Note 3

of the proposed rule be removed or

clarified to state that previously

overhauled truck beams comply with

the rule based on prior accomplishment

of the applicable service bulletins. The

commenter states that Note 3 could be

interpreted as being applicable to all

truck beams that were overhauled per

Boeing Model 757 Component

Maintenance Manual (CMM) 32–11–56,

which is specified in the service

bulletins referenced in the proposed

rule.

We concur with the commenter that

Note 3 of the final rule needs further

clarification, however, including the

original service bulletin in the note

already gives credit for previously

overhauled truck beams that comply

with the rule based on prior

accomplishment. Prior accomplishment

of the overhaul of the MLG truck beam,

as referenced in the note, does include

overhaul of the truck beam per the CMM

because it is referenced in the service

bulletin as a source for doing the

overhaul of the truck beam. Also, we

have added the internal inspection

specified in paragraph (b) of the final

rule to further clarify the intent of Note

3.

3. Remove the phrase ‘‘* * * in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 757–32A0135, dated June 8,

2000 * * *’’ from Note 3 of the

proposed rule to avoid confusion, since

the referenced service bulletin does not

specify any additional actions beyond

the current overhaul procedures.

We do not concur. As stated in issue

2. above, Note 3 gives operators credit

for overhaul of the MLG truck beam

prior to the effective date of the AD, in

accordance with the original service

bulletin. The actions required by this

AD must be performed in accordance

with FAA-approved procedures and the

referenced service bulletin contains

such procedures. We cannot leave the

note open so that the operator can use

any procedure they might have available

because not all maintenance procedures

are FAA-approved.

4. Give credit for paragraph (b) of the

proposed rule, within the referenced

compliance time, if an airplane within

Group 1 has an MLG assembly replaced

with either a new MLG assembly or an

overhauled MLG assembly

incorporating a new MLG truck beam.

We concur that if an airplane within

Group 1 has a MLG assembly replaced

with either a new MLG assembly or an

overhauled MLG assembly

incorporating a new MLG truck beam,

that airplane is in compliance with this

AD. As stated in our response to issue

1. above, the term ‘‘MLG’’ has been

changed throughout the final rule to the

term ‘‘MLG truck beam,’’ which clarifies

this information.

Extend Compliance Times

One commenter asks that the

repetitive interval for the clearing

procedure of the aft drain hole, as

specified in paragraph (a) of the

proposed rule, be changed from 6

months to 18 months, even if the drain

hole is found clogged. The commenter

states that unless there is conclusive

evidence that it is more likely that a

blocked drain hole that is cleared will

be more likely to block again, this

requirement cannot be justified and

should be reviewed.

We do not concur. If the clogging of

the drain passage was caused by

incorrect application of corrosion

inhibiting compound, the clogging is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21857

likely to reoccur sooner than for a drain

passage that is not blocked. The

repetitive interval for the clearing

procedure for an aft drain hole that is

found clogged will remain at every 6

months.

A second commenter asks that the

compliance time specified in paragraph

(b) of the proposed rule be extended.

The commenter states that it is presently

operating under an approved 24-month

‘‘C’’ check (heavy maintenance)

program. The proposed rule specifies a

compliance period of 6 months to

inspect all affected MLG, if the date of

manufacture is over 8 years. The

commenter has 44 MLG (22 airplanes)

which fall into this category and

considers that compliance time to be

overly aggressive. The commenter adds

that the inspection is better performed

in a heavy maintenance environment,

and 6 months would not allow them the

scheduling opportunity to perform

internal inspections on all the affected

MLG. The commenter also notes that, in

the unlikely event that a truck assembly

requires replacement, options for

accomplishment of the replacement are

extremely limited considering shipping,

turn time, limited parts availability, and

a compliance time of 6 months, to

perform the internal inspections and

any replacement necessary. These

conditions cause an undue burden on

the operators.

We do not concur. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

action, we considered not only the

degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition,

but the manufacturer’s recommendation

as to an appropriate compliance time,

and the practical aspect of

accomplishing the required inspection

and corrective action within an interval

of time that parallels the normal

scheduled maintenance for the majority

of affected operators. We have

determined that within 8 years since the

date of airplane delivery (for MLG truck

beams that have not been overhauled),

or since the date of installation of new

truck beams (per response to a previous

comment), or within 6 months after the

effective date of this AD; whichever

occurs latest, represents an appropriate

compliance time allowable for the

inspection and corrective action to be

accomplished during scheduled

maintenance intervals. But under the

provisions of paragraph (c) of the final

rule, we may approve requests for

adjustments to the compliance time if

data are submitted to substantiate that

such an adjustment would provide an

acceptable level of safety.

A third commenter states that a time

limit of 30 days for overhaul or

replacement of the MLG truck beam

should be allowed if any discrepancy is

detected. The commenter notes that a

small airline does not have the

resources to perform an immediate

overhaul or replacement of the affected

part.

We do not concur. As stated in the

proposal, there have been several

reports of fracture of the MLG truck

beam due to stress corrosion cracking,

which can lead to fracture of the truck

beam. This unsafe condition could

result in either reduced controllability

of the airplane or a fire. In consideration

of the end-level effect of the unsafe

condition on the airplane, if not

immediately addressed, the FAA has

determined that the compliance time of

prior to further flight for overhaul or

replacement of the truck beam if any

discrepancy is detected, as specified in

paragraph (b) of the final rule, must

remain. This compliance time is

necessary to maintain an adequate level

of safety within the transport airplane

fleet.

Revise Applicability

One commenter asks that the

applicability of the proposed rule be

revised to specify the truck beam part

number and serial number, instead of

the airplane serial number. The

commenter states that the only link

between the components and the

airplane that are affected by the

proposal is the configuration of the

airplane at delivery. The commenter

adds that identification by the part

number and serial number will

eliminate the possibility that unsafe

truck beams will not be included in the

applicability of the rule.

We do not concur. The applicability

of this AD identifies Model 757–200 and

–300 series airplanes, as listed in the

referenced service bulletins, which

specify the airplane line numbers. The

manufacturer has verified that the truck

beams specified in this AD are installed

on airplanes listed in the effectivity

section of Revision 1 of the service

bulletins, so no change to the

applicability of this AD is necessary in

this regard.

Clarify Terminating Action

Two commenters ask for the following

changes:

One commenter asks that the

installation of new or overhauled truck

beams terminate the repetitive clearing

of the drain hole specified in paragraph

(a) of the proposed rule. The commenter

states that the manufacturer considers

overhaul of the truck beams to be

sufficient for termination of the

repetitive clearing procedures specified

in the service bulletin. The commenter

adds that while the requirements of an

AD are binding, and the statements in

a service bulletin are merely

recommendations, the FAA should

consider including the content of the

manufacturer’s recommendation in the

final rule.

The commenter also notes that this

condition is a result of insufficient

corrosion protection, which is due to

improper plating of the parts during

manufacture and/or improper

application of primer, grease, or

corrosion-preventive compounds during

assembly. The potential for a corrosion

problem on the truck beams that were

improperly manufactured is increased

as a result of the fact that the improperly

applied grease or corrosion-preventive

compounds may block the drain hole.

But the commenter adds that the

manufacturer and the suppliers have

improved their processes and the unsafe

condition has been eliminated in later

deliveries, as indicated by the fact that

the service bulletins referenced in the

proposed rule are applicable to

airplanes having line numbers 1 through

874 only.

The FAA agrees that clarification is

necessary. The current CMM referenced

in the service bulletins contains an error

that specifies the application of too

much corrosion inhibiting compound

on the interior of the MLG truck beam.

If the CMM is used to apply the

corrosion inhibiting compound, the

unsafe condition may still exist on later

deliveries of Model 757–200 and –300

series airplanes.

Another commenter asks that the FAA

determine whether operators with truck

beams that were overhauled and

installed prior to the effective date of

the proposed rule should do the

repetitive drain hole clearing and

detailed internal inspection per the

proposed rule. A second commenter

asks if the overhaul or replacement of

the truck beams is terminating action for

the repetitive clearing procedures of the

aft drain hole, or if it is corrective action

as specified in paragraph (b) of the

proposed rule.

We do not concur. For airplanes with

truck beams that were overhauled and

installed prior to the effective date of

the final rule, as well as all other

affected airplanes, the repetitive drain

hole clearing and detailed internal

inspection procedures must continue to

be done indefinitely. The corrective

action of either applying corrosion

preventive compound, or overhaul or

replacement of the truck beam, does not

terminate the repetitive clearing

procedures of the aft drain hole.

21858 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Reference Maintenance Planning

Document (MPD)

One commenter requests that the

repetitive clearing procedure of the aft

drain hole be addressed by an MPD

revision because Boeing Service Letter

757–SL–32–060, dated March 31, 1999,

specifies the possible addition of the

clearing instructions for the drain hole

to the MPD. The commenter notes that

once the corrective actions have been

accomplished per the service bulletins,

the unsafe condition in the proposed

rule is eliminated. The commenter adds

that any further maintenance after the

initial clearing of the drain hole should

be limited to the procedures contained

in the MPD, as the requirements in that

document should be adequate to

maintain all airplane systems.

We do not concur. The repetitive

clearing procedures of the aft drain hole

are not specified in the MPD, so further

maintenance cannot be done per that

document.

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. We have

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 874

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

350 Model 757–200 series airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

inspections, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the

inspections required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $21,000, or

$60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

For Group 1 airplanes, as listed in

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–

32A0135: It will take approximately 28

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the internal inspection, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

inspection required by this AD is

estimated to be $1,680 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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. 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.

Currently, there are no Model 757–

300 series airplanes on the U.S. Register.

But should an affected airplane be

imported and placed on the U.S.

Register in the future, it will require

approximately 1 work hour to

accomplish the inspection, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of this

inspection will be $60 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

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:

2001–09–01 Boeing: Amendment 39–12206.

Docket 99–NM–124–AD.

Applicability: Model 757–200 series

airplanes as listed in Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 757–32A0135, Revision 1; and

Model 757–300 series airplanes as listed in

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–32A0138,

Revision 1; both dated November 30, 2000;

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 (c) 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 stress corrosion cracking,

leading to fracture of a main landing gear

(MLG) truck beam during ground operations,

which could result in either reduced

controllability of the airplane or a fire,

accomplish the following:

Repetitive Clearing Procedure

(a) Within 4 years since the last overhaul

of the MLG truck beam, since the date of

airplane delivery (for MLG truck beams that

have not been overhauled), or since the date

of installation of new truck beams; or within

90 days after the effective date of this AD;

whichever occurs latest: Insert a wooden

probe, or similar non-metallic object, into the

aft drain hole of the MLG truck beam, to clear

the drain passage and ensure it can properly

drain, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 757–32A0135, Revision 1

(for Model 757–200 series airplanes), or 757–

32A0138, Revision 1 (for Model 757–300

series airplanes), both dated November 30,

2000, as applicable.

(1) If the aft drain hole is found unclogged,

repeat the clearing procedure thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 18 months.

(2) If the aft drain hole is found clogged,

repeat the clearing procedure thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 6 months.

Note 2: Accomplishment of the clearance

of the drain passage prior to the effective date

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service

Letter 757–SL–32–060, dated March 31,

1999; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–

32A0135 (for Model 757–200 series

airplanes), or 757–32A0138 (for Model 757–

300 series airplanes), both dated June 8,

2000; as applicable; is considered acceptable

for compliance with the requirements

specified in paragraph (a) of this AD.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21859

Internal Inspection

(b) For Group 1 airplanes as listed in

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–32A0135,

Revision 1, dated November 30, 2000: Within

8 years since the date of airplane delivery (for

MLG truck beams that have not been

overhauled), or since the date of installation

of new truck beams; or within 6 months after

the effective date of this AD; whichever

occurs latest: Perform an internal inspection

of the truck beam protective finish (plating

and primer) to detect discrepancies (flaked,

cracked, missing finish, or corrosion), as

illustrated in Figure 2 of the alert service

bulletin.

Corrective Action

(1) If no discrepancy is detected, prior to

further flight, apply corrosion preventive

compound in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert

service bulletin.

(2) If any discrepancy is detected, prior to

further flight, overhaul or replace the truck

beam, as applicable, in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert

service bulletin.

Note 3: Accomplishment of the internal

inspection and overhaul of the MLG truck

beam, as applicable, prior to the effective

date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 757–32A0135, dated

June 8, 2000, is considered acceptable for

compliance with the requirements specified

in paragraph (b) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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.

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 4: 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

(d) 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

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–

32A0135, Revision 1, dated November 30,

2000; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–

32A0138, Revision 1, dated November 30,

2000; 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 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.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 6, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 20,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10466 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–200–AD; Amendment

39–12208; AD 2001–09–03]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A330 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Model A330 series

airplanes. This action requires repetitive

inspections of the spars, rib, and

stringers in the vertical stabilizer spar

box for failure of the bonds to the skin,

and repair, if necessary. It also requires

modification of the vertical stabilizer

spar box by installation of fasteners to

reinforce the bonds to the skin, which

terminates the repetitive inspections.

This action is prompted by issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information. This action is necessary to

prevent failure of the bonds of the

vertical stabilizer spar box to the skin,

which could lead to reduced structural

integrity of the spar box. It is intended

to address the identified unsafe

condition.

DATES: Effective May 17, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 17,

2001.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket Number 2000–

NM–200–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

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–iarcomment@faa.gov. Comments

sent via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–200–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 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, ANM–116,

International Branch, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

certain Airbus Model A330 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that there

have been findings of localized failure

of bonding of the spars, rib, and

stringers to the skin on several vertical

stabilizer spar boxes. This failure results

from contamination of the bonding

surface during the production process.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in failure of the bonds of the

vertical stabilizer spar box to the skin,

which could lead to reduced structural

integrity of the spar box.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued two service

bulletins pertinent to this unsafe

condition. Airbus Service Bulletin

A330–55A3025, Revision 01, dated

September 15, 2000, describes

procedures for initial and repetitive

ultrasonic inspections of the spars, rib,

and stringers of the vertical stabilizer

spar box for failure of the bonds to the

skin; and for repair of localized areas of

this debonding.

Airbus Service Bulletin A330–

55A3026, dated June 23, 2000, describes

procedures for installation of fasteners