Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67939 

Bulletin 147–25–020, dated November 11, 

2003; or Issue 1, dated December 3, 2003; 

before the effective date of this AD, is 

considered acceptable for compliance with 

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(g)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

FAA, is authorized to approve alternative 

methods of compliance (AMOCs) for this AD. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in Brazilian airworthiness directive 2002–09–

01R1, dated June 2, 2004. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

25, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22311 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19866; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–25–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 767–200, –300, and –300F Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain Boeing Model 767–200, –300, 

and –300F series airplanes. The original 

NPRM would have required verifying 

the part and serial numbers of certain 

main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam 

pivot pins; replacing those pivot pins 

with new or overhauled pivot pins if 

necessary; and ultimately replacing all 

pivot pins with new, improved pivot 

pins. The original NPRM was prompted 

by reports indicating that numerous 

fractures of the MLG bogie beam pivot 

pin have been found and that some 

pivot pins may have had improper 

rework during manufacture. This action 

revises the original NPRM by adding 

new inspections; revising the inspection 

thresholds and repetitive intervals; and 

revising the compliance time for 

replacing all pivot pins with newmaterial pins. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to prevent fracture 

of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin, which 

could lead to possible loss of the MLG 

truck during takeoff or landing and 

consequent loss of control of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by December 

5, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

supplemental NPRM. 

• 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. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

You can examine the contents of this 

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., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. 

This docket number is FAA–2004–

19866; the directorate identifier for this 

docket is 2004–NM–25–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Candice Gerretsen, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6428; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this supplemental NPRM. 

Send your comments to an address 

listed under ADDRESSES. Include 

‘‘Docket No. FAA–2004–19866; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–25–AD’’

at the beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

this supplemental NPRM. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

supplemental NPRM in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments submitted, 

without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, 

including any personal information you 

provide. We will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this supplemental NPRM. Using the 

search function of our docket Web site, 

anyone can find and read the comments 

in any of our dockets, including the 

name of the individual who sent the 

comment (or signed the comment on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You can review the DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you can visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You can examine the 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 in the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in ADDRESSES. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System (DMS) receives 

them. 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) for an AD (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) for certain Boeing Model 767–

200, –300, and –300F series airplanes. 

The original NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on December 16, 

2004 (69 FR 75270). The original NPRM 

proposed to require verifying the part 

and serial numbers of certain main 

landing gear (MLG) bogie beam pivot 

pins; replacing those pivot pins with 

new or overhauled pivot pins if 

necessary; and ultimately replacing all 

pivot pins with new, improved pivot 

pins. 

Actions Since Original NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the original NPRM, 

the manufacturer notified us that the 

parts necessary to accomplish the 

terminating action are not available in 

quantities that are sufficient for 

operators to accomplish the action 

within the proposed compliance time. 

In addition, the number of pivot pin 

failures has increased. This increase in 

failures combined with the limited 

67940 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

availability of parts for the terminating 

action caused the manufacturer to 

develop new inspection methods that 

provide an acceptable level of safety 

until the necessary parts can be 

obtained for the terminating action. 

These new inspection methods are 

provided in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin, 767–32A0199, Revision 2, 

dated May 26, 2005, which is described 

below. The manufacturer has assured us 

that it will be able to meet the new 

replacement schedule specified in this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–32A0199, Revision 

2, dated May 26, 2005 (Revision 1, dated 

July 22, 2004, was cited as the 

acceptable source of service information 

for certain actions in the original 

NPRM). This service bulletin describes 

procedures for doing repetitive 

lubrications of the old-material MLG 

bogie beam pivot pins. The service 

bulletin also describes procedures for 

doing repetitive inspections of the oldmaterial pins according to one or more 

of the following three options, as 

applicable. The compliance time for 

doing the first inspection is before the 

pivot pin is 24 or 48 months old since 

the pivot pin was new or last 

overhauled, or within 12 months after 

the Revision 2 release date of the service 

bulletin, whichever is later. 

Repetitive inspection option 1: 

Measure the length of the installed pivot 

pin to make sure it is not fractured. If 

the length of the pin exceeds the 

maximum shown in Figure 1 of the 

service bulletin, the service bulletin 

states that the pin may be fractured and 

gives procedures for doing the related 

investigative and corrective actions in 

repetitive inspection option 3. The 

service bulletin specifies that this 

measurement should be repeated one 

time per day. 

Repetitive inspection option 2: Do an 

ultrasonic inspection of the installed 

pin for cracks. If any crack is found 

during this inspection, the service 

bulletin gives procedures for doing the 

related investigative and corrective 

actions in repetitive inspection option 3. 

The service bulletin specifies that this 

inspection should be repeated every 45 

or 90 days, depending on the 

configuration group to which the 

airplane belongs. 

Repetitive inspection option 3: Do 

detailed inspections with the pivot pin 

removed. The first detailed inspection is 

of the outer diameter of the pivot pin for 

bronze transfer, cracks, corrosion, and 

damage to the chrome plate. If a crack 

is found in the pivot pin, or if the pivot 

pin outer diameter has bronze transfer 

or damage to the chrome plate, the 

service bulletin gives procedures for the 

corrective action of replacing the pin 

with a serviceable old-material pin or 

with a new-material pin before further 

flight. Replacing the pin with a newmaterial pin is terminating action for the 

remaining detailed inspections. The 

second detailed inspection is of the 

bogie beam pivot bushings for 

discrepancies such as damage, 

migration, rotation, or corrosion around 

the flange. If there is no discrepancy, the 

service bulletin states that no further 

inspection is necessary until the next 

repetitive inspection. If there is a 

discrepancy, the service bulletin gives 

procedures for corrective actions and 

related investigative actions, and 

specifies that operators do the third 

detailed inspection. The third detailed 

inspection is of the inner cylinder pivot 

bushings for discrepancies such as 

damage, migration, rotation, cracks, or 

corrosion around the flange. If there is 

no discrepancy, the service bulletin 

states that no further inspection is 

necessary until the next repetitive 

inspection. If there is a discrepancy, the 

service bulletin gives procedures for 

related investigative and corrective 

actions. The corrective actions and 

related investigative actions include 

further detailed inspections, eddy 

current inspections, etch inspections, 

and dye penetrant inspections, as 

applicable, for cracks, corrosion and 

other damage as applicable; and 

contacting Boeing for repair 

instructions. The service bulletin 

specifies that this inspection should be 

repeated every 24 or 48 months. 

The alert service bulletin also gives 

procedures for replacing the pivot pin 

with a new-material pin. This 

replacement terminates the repetitive 

lubrications and repetitive inspections 

for the replaced pivot pin. The 

replacement involves, first, the related 

investigative actions of doing a detailed 

inspection of the pivot bushings and the 

pivot bushing on each lug of the MLG 

inner cylinder for discrepancies such as 

damage, migration, rotation, corrosion, 

and the bushing inner diameters, and 

corrective actions and related 

investigative actions, if necessary, 

before doing the replacement. Also, 

before installing the new-material pivot 

pin, the service bulletin gives 

procedures for cleaning pivot joint 

bushings that have not been previously 

replaced during the repetitive 

inspections, and applying new, 

specified, grease at the pivot joint 

lubrication fittings on the bogie beam 

and inner cylinder; applying the 

specified grease by hand to the entire 

inner diameter of each of the pivot 

bushings on the bogie beam inner 

cylinder and the outer cylinder of the 

pivot pin. After the new-material pivot 

pin is installed, the service bulletin 

specifies that operators should lubricate 

the MLG pivot pins and the truck 

assemblies with the specified grease. 

Accomplishing the actions specified 

in the service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments on the original NPRM. 

Support for the Proposed Rule 

Three commenters express support for 

the original NPRM. One of the 

commenters, the airplane manufacturer, 

states that it agrees with combining the 

actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 

767–32A0199, Revision 1, dated July 22, 

2004, and 767–32A0202, dated July 22, 

2004. The commenter states that 

releasing one AD to address the actions 

in both service bulletins benefits the 

operators of the 767 fleet because it will 

simplify logistics and reduce labor 

costs. The commenter further states that 

the number of suspect pins listed in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0202 is very small (less then 20) 

when compared with the larger 

population of pins that will eventually 

need to be replaced. 

Request To Separate Actions in Two 

Service Bulletins 

Another commenter, an airplane 

operator, states that the conditions 

addressed by Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletins 767–32A0199 and 767–

32A0202 are unrelated and should not 

be combined in the same AD. The 

commenter maintains that the two 

service bulletins address very separate, 

unrelated problems written against the 

same part: Potential manufacturing 

irregularities in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–32A0202, and the 

availability of a new-material part in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0199. The commenter asserts that if 

the data had supported that 

manufacturing irregularities affected 

part performance, it would support 

mandating Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

767–32A0202, but that Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–32A0199 is 

unrelated and should not be mandated. 

The commenter summarizes that the 

original NPRM lacks clarity regarding 

what unsafe condition the FAA is 

attempting to correct, and requests that 

the FAA either retract the original 

NPRM, or supersede with a new NPRM 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67941 

that addresses, clearly and concisely, 

the FAA’s concern. 

We disagree with the commenter. 

Inspections and replacements that 

satisfy certain requirements of both 

bulletins can be performed at the same 

time. As stated by the previous 

commenter, combining the actions from 

these two service bulletins benefits the 

operators of the 767 fleet because it will 

simplify logistics and reduce labor 

costs. We agree with the commenter that 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0202 addresses a quality assurance 

problem with certain pivot pins, and 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0199 addresses deficiencies in the 

original design of the pivot pin; 

however, we do not agree that these 

service bulletins are unrelated and 

should not be combined in the same 

AD. Both service bulletins address 

failure of the same pivot pin, and 

therefore address the same unsafe 

condition, which is fracture of the MLG 

bogie beam pivot pin, which could lead 

to possible loss of the MLG truck during 

takeoff or landing and consequent loss 

of control of the airplane. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Allow Time-Limited Reinstallations With Additional 

Inspections 

The airplane manufacturer requests 

that the supplemental NPRM allow oldmaterial pivot pins (part numbers (P/Ns) 

16111145–2, –3, or –4) to be re-installed 

on a time-limited basis in lieu of 

installing the new-material pin (P/N 

16111145–5), provided the old-material 

pin is free of cracks, corrosion, heat 

damage, and chrome-plate distress. The 

commenter proposes that the oldmaterial pins could be used on a timelimited basis, and repetitive inspections 

required prior to replacement with the 

new-material pins. 

We agree with the commenter. The 

airplane manufacturer was not able to 

supply sufficient new-material pins 

soon enough to satisfy the requirements 

proposed in the original NPRM. The 

commenter has assured the FAA that 

sufficient new-material pins will be 

supplied within the new replacement 

schedule proposed in this supplemental 

NPRM. The proposed additional 

inspections are designed to detect 

failure of the pin in the interim before 

the final terminating action of replacing 

the pins with new-material pins is 

accomplished. We have revised the 

supplemental NPRM to include the 

time-limited re-installation and the 

repetitive inspections. 

Request To Allow Six Months for 

Replacement 

The airplane manufacturer requests 

that paragraph (f)(2) of the original 

NPRM be revised to remove the 

requirement to replace suspect pins 

‘‘prior to further flight.’’ The commenter 

instead requests that operators be 

allowed six months to accomplish the 

replacement, as stated in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–32A0202. The 

commenter states that the six-month 

period would allow time for operators to 

plan for the pin replacement and to 

obtain the required parts while still 

maintaining an acceptable level of 

safety. 

We agree with the commenter. Upon 

further review, we have determined that 

with the new repetitive inspections 

provided in this supplemental NPRM, a 

six-month replacement period provides 

an acceptable level of safety. We have 

revised the supplemental NPRM to 

include this change. 

Request for Alternate Solutions That 

Have Less Cost Impact 

The commenter is concerned that it 

will face extreme cost investments as a 

result of the mandatory pivot pin 

replacement. The commenter 

recommends that the FAA evaluate 

alternative solutions that have less cost 

impact for operators. 

We agree that evaluating alternative 

solutions is important. Boeing has been 

evaluating many possible solutions 

since the fourth reported pivot pin 

failure in 2002 (previous failures 

occurred in 1991 and 1996). In 2002, inservice experience indicated the poor 

lubrication was the primary cause of the 

failure; however, some recent in-service 

failures show that the joint was properly 

lubricated. Therefore, we concluded 

that even with frequent lubrication, the 

rotating friction in the joint tends to dry 

the grease and produce localized heat 

damage on the pin. Boeing has reviewed 

many different options and has 

concluded that replacing the pin with 

the new-material pin is the most costeffective and best solution. In addition, 

the new repetitive inspections and final 

replacement schedule will allow 

operators more time to plan for the cost 

of replacement. 

Request To Remove Actions in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 767–32A0202 

The commenter, an airplane operator, 

asserts that the conditions listed in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0202, dated July 22, 2004, address 

potential documentation errors and do 

not constitute a safety concern that 

exists or is likely to exist on other 

airplanes of the same design. The 

commenter maintains that the service 

bulletin states that some pivot pins may 

have been improperly processed during 

manufacture, and that the service 

bulletin recommends that the subject 

pivot pins, listed by P/N and S/N, be 

removed and either scrapped or 

overhauled. The commenter further 

advises that the manufacturer, in a telex 

to airplane operators, summarized that 

the subject pivot pins had discrepancies 

during manufacture, but that the 

manufacturing records were not 

complete in terms of showing all 

corrective processes. The commenter 

points out that the manufacturer, in an 

additional telex to airplane operators, 

stated that there were no reported pivot 

pin failures caused by the conditions in 

the service bulletin, and that the pivot 

pins were manufactured and sent to 

Boeing between 1998 and 2001, and 

therefore have been in service for 3 to 

16 [sic] years. It has been the 

commenter’s experience that the 

potential manufacturing defects 

reported in this service bulletin (heat 

damage, anode burns, or cracking), 

which should have been found by 

magnetic particle inspection or nital 

etch, typically result in a rapid failure 

of the part, usually in less than 6 

months. The commenter points out that 

a telex from the manufacturer stated that 

Boeing concurs that many of these types 

of defects would result in early failure 

of the parts. The expectation of early 

failure, and the lack of failure of any 

pivot pin listed in the service bulletin 

leads the commenter to conclude that 

the ‘‘problem’’ addressed in the service 

bulletin is poor recordkeeping rather 

than poor quality pivot pins. The 

commenter asserts that the fact that 

failures would be expected rapidly, in 

combination with no failures in this 

group of pivot pins during the last 16 

[sic] years, supports its position that the 

conditions in the service bulletin 

address potential documentation errors 

rather than a safety concern. 

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting that we remove the actions in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0202 from the requirements of the 

supplemental NPRM. We disagree with 

the request. We recognize that to date 

we have not received any reports of pin 

failures due to this condition. However, 

we have received numerous reports of 

failures in pins manufactured properly; 

and considering that the pins that are 

the subject of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–32A0202 were not 

manufactured appropriately and do not 

meet the manufacturing standards, 

premature fracture is likely to occur. 

67942 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Therefore, in the interest of air safety 

and the public interest, we have 

determined that retaining the actions of 

this service bulletin is necessary. We 

have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Review Options Other Than 

Pivot Pin Replacement 

The commenter agrees with the FAA’s 

desire to address pivot pin failures, but 

states that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

767–32A0199, Revision 1, authorizes 

the use of a new pivot pin rather than 

giving a comprehensive summary of all 

possible actions that could reduce pivot 

pin failures. The commenter points out 

that a variety conditions such as runway 

roughness, grease type, lubrication 

interval, and temperature during lube 

visits are all known factors that can 

contribute to premature pivot pin 

failure. The commenter further states 

that none of these factors are addressed 

in this service bulletin. The commenter 

gives the opinion that this service 

bulletin is not a comprehensive 

discussion of the various ways to reduce 

premature pivot pin failure, but is only 

the ‘‘authorization’’ of one particular 

method; the new-material pivot pin. The 

commenter maintains that mandating 

only one possible corrective action 

without addressing the other causes of 

pivot pin damage could be misleading 

as to the extent of the issue, and could 

prove to be a costly burden for operators 

that do not fully address the unsafe 

condition. The commenter then suggests 

that we address several options to 

reduce pivot pin failures such as grease 

type, lubrication intervals, and 

temperature during lubrication 

intervals. The commenter states that 

these options are far more significant 

factors in addressing premature pivot 

pin failure than the actions in the 

service bulletin, and also states that by 

implementing these options it has 

avoided having had an in-service pivot 

pin failure. The commenter feels that 

there is a significant lack of data, 

illustrated by the fact that the service 

bulletin states that several operators 

have reported pivot pin failures, 

although none has resulted in loss of the 

main landing gear (MLG) truck. The 

commenter argues that this lack of data 

supports a decision to revisit this 

proposed AD with the manufacturer in 

order to address the entire problem at 

hand. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter. We agree that the problem 

should be revisited, and we are issuing 

this supplemental NPRM as a result of 

this and other comments we have 

received. In addition, Boeing has 

revised service bulletin 767–32A0199, 

which is now at Revision 2, dated May 

26, 2005. This revision of the service 

bulletin is cited as the appropriate 

source of service information for certain 

actions in this supplemental NPRM. 

Boeing revised the service bulletin 

because of the increased rate of pivot 

pin fractures since the release of 

Revision 1. Among other things, the 

service bulletin addresses lubrication 

intervals. We also agree that grease type, 

and temperature during lube visits are 

all known factors that can contribute to 

premature pivot pin failure; service 

experience has shown this. Although we 

agree that runway roughness can 

contribute to premature pivot pin 

failure, it does not affect any U.S. 

operator of these airplanes and is 

therefore not addressed in this 

supplemental NPRM. We disagree with 

removing the requirement to replace 

pivot pins with new pivot pins made of 

new material. Some of the fractured 

pins have shown evidence of correct 

grease, and no evidence of lack of 

lubrication. The original pin material is 

very sensitive to heat damage in service, 

even with proper maintenance; the new 

pin material is more robust. We also 

disagree that there is a significant lack 

of data supporting the need for this 

proposed action, illustrated by lack of 

examples of the loss of the MLG truck. 

As stated previously, the number of 

pivot pin failures has increased since 

the release of Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin. In one case, both halves of the 

pivot pin migrated out of the joint, and 

the airplane made a successful landing 

with the MLG truck attached only by the 

MLG brake rods. We have not changed 

the supplemental NPRM as a result of 

this comment, though we have reviewed 

other options, such as grease type and 

temperature during lubrication visits, 

and made some changes, addressed 

below, based on more detailed 

comments on similar topics from the 

same commenter. 

Request To Mandate Use of Royco11MS Grease and Prohibit Mixing of 

Grease 

The same commenter requests that we 

consider mandating the use of Royco11MS grease. The commenter asserts 

that one reason it has had no in-service 

pivot pin failures is due to the fact that 

it uses only this grease during 

lubrication. The commenter points out 

that Boeing Maintenance Tip 767–MT–

32–022 discusses lubrication of critical 

landing gear joints, including the pivot 

pin, and states that this grease is 

desirable for highly loaded movable 

joints and that other grease is not 

adequate at these locations. The 

commenter explains that Royco-11MS 

grease includes molybdenum, which 

acts like roller bearings in the joint and 

helps retain the grease in highly loaded 

joints such as the pivot pin joint. In 

addition, the commenter emphasizes 

that both Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 

767–32A0199 and 767–32A0202 call for 

lubrication with Royco-11MS grease. 

The same commenter requests that we 

consider prohibiting the mixing of 

grease types during lubrication for the 

same reason cited above. The 

commenter cites Flight Standards 

Information Bulletin FSAW 02–02B, 

which discusses the severity of the 

concern regarding mixing grease, and 

provides recommendations regarding 

purging old grease when grease usage is 

changed in a specific joint. The 

commenter stresses that both Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletins 767–32A0199 

and 767–32A0202 call for installation 

with Royco-11MS grease. The 

commenter argues that if an operator is 

currently using a grease other than 

Royco-11MS grease, that operator will 

be forced to mix grease at that location 

because that grease is now mandated by 

the AD action, or the operator will be 

forced to obtain an alternative method 

of compliance (AMOC) in order to use 

its standard grease. The commenter 

emphasizes that the supplemental 

NPRM should address grease in a 

manner that reduces the likelihood of 

mixing grease. 

We agree with the commenter. Royco11MS grease is the only grease currently 

approved by the manufacturer for this 

joint, for the same reasons cited by the 

commenter. With the frequent 

lubrications proposed by this 

supplemental NPRM, using only Royco11MS grease, proper lubrication 

procedures (i.e., purging all old grease 

from the joint while lubricating) will 

ensure that old grease is purged from 

the joint. However, we have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard because the service bulletins, 

which are cited as the appropriate 

source of service information for this 

supplemental NPRM, already specify 

using this grease. 

Request To Mandate Minimum 

Temperature During Lubrication Visits 

The same commenter requests that we 

consider mandating minimum 

temperatures during lubrication visits. 

The commenter asserts that one reason 

it has had no in-service pivot pin 

failures is that it holds to a minimum 

ambient temperature during lubrication. 

The commenter states that certain 

maintenance documents recommend 

that operators ensure that grease 

application is done when temperatures 

are above freezing because cold grease 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67943 

will not flow and is therefore not likely 

to adequately lubricate a large joint, 

such as the pivot pin joint, where the 

grease has to travel. 

We disagree with the commenter. 

Certain maintenance procedures are 

documented in the component 

maintenance manual and the airplane 

maintenance manual; among these 

procedures are lubrication procedures. 

These lubrication procedures include 

industry ‘‘best practices’’ which are 

ensuring that grease is dispensed into 

grease fittings until the used grease is 

visually removed and only new grease 

comes out. If operators follow these 

lubrication procedures, the grease will 

be applied properly. Mandating a 

minimum temperature will not ensure 

that proper lubrication has taken place. 

We have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Mandate Shorter 

Lubrication Intervals 

The same commenter requests that we 

consider mandating shorter lubrication 

intervals. The commenter asserts that 

one reason it has had no in-service pivot 

pin failures is that it has an aggressive 

lubrication schedule. These lubrication 

intervals are addressed in numerous 

sources including the maintenance 

planning document (MPD). The 

commenter states that it lubricates the 

pivot pin joints with Royco-11MS grease 

every 125 hours, more frequently than 

the 1A recommendation in the MPD. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter. We agree with mandating 

shorter lubrication intervals. As part of 

the supplemental NPRM, we are 

increasing the length of time (for some 

airplanes) that the old-material pins can 

remain in service. In order for the oldmaterial pins to remain in service and 

still provide an acceptable level of 

safety, we have specified more frequent 

lubrication in order to minimize the risk 

of heat damage. Boeing’s research shows 

that lubricating every 14 days or 50 

flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier, 

will be more effective in preventing heat 

damage to the pins than the 1A interval, 

which is typically equivalent to 300 

flight cycles. We have added a new 

paragraph (h) to the supplemental 

NPRM to account for these shorter 

lubrication intervals. 

Request To Allow Review of 

Maintenance Records 

Several commenters requested that we 

revise the supplemental NPRM to allow 

the option to review maintenance 

records to determine the P/N and S/N of 

the pivot pin in lieu of inspecting the 

pin itself as currently specified in the 

proposed AD. The commenters maintain 

records for the applicable pins installed 

on all aircraft. These records identify 

both P/Ns and S/Ns. 

We agree with the commenters. 

Reviewing existing records of P/Ns and 

S/Ns is an acceptable method for 

identifying the pivot pin. We have 

revised paragraph (f) of the 

supplemental NPRM to include this 

review. 

Request To Clearly Exclude Certain 

Pivot Pins 

One commenter requests that we 

revise paragraph (f)(1) of the original 

NPRM to clearly and specifically 

exclude pivot pins that have a P/N and 

S/N that is outside the applicable range 

of the proposal. The commenter 

suggests that we include a citation of 

Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

767–32A0202 in this paragraph in order 

to exclude certain pins. 

We infer that the commenter finds 

paragraph (f)(1) to be unclear, and we 

agree with the requested change in order 

to provide the greatest clarity. We have 

revised paragraph (f)(1) of the 

supplemental NPRM to include the 

commenter’s suggested change. 

Request To Include Alternative Method 

for Replacing Pivot Pins 

One commenter requests that we 

incorporate in the supplemental NPRM 

a more efficient, alternative method for 

replacing the pivot pins. The 

commenter makes this suggestion in 

order to avoid the costly purchase of 

numerous new-material pivot pins, and 

possible manufacturing shortages of 

these pins. The commenter feels that its 

suggestion would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. The commenter’s 

suggested alternative method involves 

removing any old-material pins in 

accordance with Boeing CMM, Subject 

32–11–30, stripping the chrome plate, 

and doing a magnetic particle 

examination of the base metal for cracks 

and/or discrepancies. The commenter 

then suggests refinishing serviceable 

units in accordance with Boeing CMM, 

Subject 32–11–30, updating the bogie 

beam and inner cylinder pivot pin 

bushing in accordance with Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–32–0021, Revision 

3, and assembling the pivot pin joint 

using only Royco 11–MS grease. The 

commenter then suggests identifying 

each of the five pivot pin joint zerk 

fitting locations per gear to specify using 

only Royco 11–MS grease, and setting 

the lubrication interval at the 1A 

intervals from the MPD. 

We disagree with the commenter. The 

commenter did not provide any 

justification to show that its proposal 

offers an acceptable level of safety. 

However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (l) of the supplemental 

NPRM, if the commenter would like to 

submit this proposal as an AMOC with 

the appropriate substantiation, we will 

consider the proposal at that time. 

Explanation of Further Changes Made 

to the Original NPRM 

Boeing has received a Delegation 

Option Authorization (DOA). We have 

revised this supplemental NPRM to 

delegate the authority to approve an 

alternative method of compliance for 

any repair that would be required by 

this supplemental NPRM to the 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing DOA Organization rather than 

the Designated Engineering 

Representative (DER). 

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. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

The changes discussed above expand 

the scope of the original NPRM; 

therefore, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

public comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Differences Between the Supplemental 

NPRM and the Service Bulletins 

Although Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–32A0199, Revision 2, 

specifies that operators may contact the 

manufacturer for certain compliance 

times for ‘‘Group 2 airplanes that have 

been operated at weights less than 

353,000 pounds since pivot pin 

installation,’’ this supplemental NPRM 

would require operators to contact the 

FAA for an AMOC for new compliance 

times in accordance with paragraph (l) 

of the supplemental NPRM. 

In addition, Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–32A0199, Revision 2, 

specifies that operators may contact the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair certain conditions, but this 

supplemental NPRM would require 

operators to repair those conditions in 

one of the following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization whom we have authorized 

to make those findings. 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0199, Revision 2, and Boeing Alert 

67944 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Service Bulletin 767–32A0202, specify 

compliance times relative to the date the 

service bulletin was issued or released; 

however, this supplemental NPRM 

would require compliance times relative 

to the effective date of the AD. 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

32A0202 specifies that operators may do 

a ‘‘check’’ of the P/Ns and S/Ns of 

certain MLG bogie beam pivot pins. 

However, this supplemental NPRM 

would call this action a ‘‘general visual 

inspection.’’ We have determined that 

trained maintenance personnel must 

perform this action, whereas untrained 

personnel may perform a ‘‘check.’’ Note 

1 of the supplemental NPRM describes 

a general visual inspection. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 857 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this supplemental NPRM. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Pin Inspection .............. 1 $65 None ........................... $65 .............................. 374 $24,310. 

Repetitive Lubrication .. 1 $65 None ........................... $65, per inspection 

cycle.

374 $55,705, per lubrication cycle. 

Repetitive Inspection 

Option 1: Length 

Measurement.

1 $65 None ........................... $65, per ispection 

cycle.

374 N/A. 

Repetitive Inspection 

Option 2: Ultrasonic 

cycle Inspection.

2 $65 None ........................... $130, per inspection 

cycle.

374 N/A. 

Repetitive Inspection 

Option 3: Detailed Inspection (with Pivot 

Pin Removed).

14 $65 None ........................... $910, per inspection 

cycle.

374 N/A. 

Pivot Pin Short-term 

Replacement (Optional), pin per pivot.

12 $65 $5,369, per pivot pin ... $6,149, per pivot pin ... 374 N/A. 

Terminating Action 

(Permanent Replacement).

14 $65 $11,686, per pivot pin $12,596, per pivot pin 374 $4,710,904. 

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 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. 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 supplemental NPRM. 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. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2004–19866; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–25–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this AD action by 

December 5, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767–

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

certificated in any category; as identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–32A0202, 

dated July 22, 2004, and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–32A0199, Revision 2, dated 

May 26, 2005. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports 

indicating that numerous fractures of the 

main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam pivot 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67945 

pin have been found and that some pivot 

pins may have had improper rework during 

manufacture. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent fracture of the MLG bogie beam pivot 

pin, which could lead to possible loss of the 

MLG truck during takeoff or landing and 

consequent loss of control of the airplane. 

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. 

Inspection for Part Number and Serial 

Number, and Short-Term Replacement 

(f) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, do a general visual inspection of 

the part number (P/N) and serial number (S/ 

N) of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

767–32A0202, dated July 22, 2004. A review 

of airplane maintenance records is acceptable 

for compliance with this paragraph if the P/ 

N and S/N of the MLG bogie beam pivot pin 

can be positively determined from that 

review. 

(1) If the S/N of the pivot pin contains the 

letters ‘‘MA’’ or ‘‘MAM,’’ or if the S/N of the 

pivot pin is not listed in Figure 1 of the 

service bulletin, no further action is required 

by this paragraph. 

(2) If any pivot pin has a P/N and S/N that 

is listed in Figure 1 of the service bulletin, 

within 6 months after the effective date of 

this AD: Replace the pivot pin with an 

overhauled pin having P/N 161T1145–2, –3, 

or –4, that includes a chrome plate strip as 

part of the pin overhaul; or with a newmaterial pin having P/N 161T1145–5; in 

accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Replacing the pin with a new-material pin 

having P/N 161T1145–5 in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

service bulletin, terminates the requirements 

of this AD for that pivot pin. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual 

examination of an interior or exterior area, 

installation, or assembly to detect obvious 

damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of 

inspection is made from within touching 

distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror 

may be necessary to ensure visual access to 

all surfaces in the inspection area. This level 

of inspection is made under normally 

available lighting conditions such as 

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or 

droplight and may require removal or 

opening of access panels or doors. Stands, 

ladders, or platforms may be required to gain 

proximity to the area being checked.’’

Discrepancy Reporting 

(g) If any pivot pin has a P/N and S/N 

listed in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–32A0202, dated July 22, 2004, 

submit a report of the inspection required by 

paragraph (f) of this AD to the Manager, 

Airline Support, Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, at the applicable 

time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of 

this AD. The report must include the P/N and 

S/N of the pivot pin, a description of any 

discrepancies found, the airplane serial 

number, and the number of landings and 

flight hours on the airplane. Under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in this AD and has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

(1) If the inspection was done after the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

Repetitive Lubrication 

(h) Within 30 days after the effective date 

of this AD: Do the pivot pin special 

lubrication in accordance with Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–32A0199, Revision 2, 

including Appendix A, dated May 26, 2005. 

Repeat the lubrication thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 14 days or 50 flight cycles, 

whichever occurs earlier. Doing the 

terminating action in paragraph (j) of this AD 

ends the inspection requirements of this 

paragraph. 

Repetitive Pin Inspections 

(i) Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) 

and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable 

compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–32A0199, Revision 2, including 

Appendix A, dated May 26, 2005, do one of 

the following inspections of the installed 

pivot pin in accordance with the specified 

part of the service bulletin: Part 2—Length 

Measurement, Part 3—Ultrasonic Inspection, 

or Part 4—Detailed Inspection; and do any 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions before further flight. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable interval specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service bulletin. 

Doing the replacement specified in paragraph 

(j) of this AD ends the inspection 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Where the service bulletin specifies a 

compliance time based on the release date of 

Revision 2 of the service bulletin, this AD 

requires compliance based on the effective 

date of this AD. 

(2) Where the Note at the end of Table 1 

in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the 

service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing 

for a longer compliance time for ‘‘Group 2 

airplanes that have been operated at weights 

less than 353,000 pounds since pivot pin 

installation’’: Operators must contact the 

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA, for an alternative method of 

compliance in accordance with paragraph (l) 

of this AD for any requests for a longer 

compliance time. 

Note 2: 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 mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Terminating Action 

(j) At the applicable compliance time in 

paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, replace 

any MLG bogie beam pivot pin having P/N 

161T1145–2, –3, or –4, with a new, improved 

pivot pin having P/N 161T1145–5; and do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions before further flight; in 

accordance with Part 5 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–32A0199, Revision 2, 

including Appendix A, dated May 26, 2005. 

Where the Note at the end of Table 1 in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service 

bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for a 

longer compliance time for ‘‘Group 2 

airplanes that have been operated at weights 

less than 353,000 pounds since pivot pin 

installation’’; operators must contact the 

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA, for an alternative method of 

compliance in accordance with paragraph (l) 

of this AD for any requests for a longer 

compliance time. Doing the replacement in 

accordance with this paragraph terminates 

the requirements of this AD for that pivot 

pin. 

(1) For airplanes identified in the service 

bulletin as Group 1 airplanes: Within 96 

months after the effective date of this AD. 

(2) For airplanes identified in the service 

bulletin as Group 2 airplanes: Within 48 

months after the effective date of this AD. 

Actions Accomplished According to 

Previous Issues of Service Bulletin 

(k) Replacing any pivot pin with a new, 

improved pivot pin having P/N 161T1145–5, 

before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with the service bulletins 

identified in Table 1 of this AD is considered 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding action specified in this AD. 

TABLE 1.—PREVIOUS ISSUES OF

SERVICE BULLETIN

Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 

Revision Date 

767–32A0199 ... Original April 8, 2004. 

767–32A0199 ... 1 ......... July 22, 2004. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

67946 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(3) 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 3, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22310 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22872; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–198–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier 

Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet 

Series 700, 701, & 702), CL–600–2D15 

(Regional Jet Series 705), and CL–600–

2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Bombardier Model CL–600–

2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 

702), CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 

705), and CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet 

Series 900) airplanes. This proposed AD 

would require replacing the Camloc 

fasteners on the sidewall of the center 

pedestal. This proposed AD results from 

reports of the Camloc fasteners on the 

sidewall of the center pedestal 

disengaging and interfering with an 

inboard rudder pedal. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent these fasteners from 

disengaging and interfering with an 

inboard rudder pedal, which could 

reduce directional controllability of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 9, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed 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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, 

Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, 

Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec 

H3C 3G9, Canada, for service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE–

172, FAA, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 

11590; telephone (516) 228–7305; fax 

(516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘FAA–2005–22872; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–198–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the 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 DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the airworthiness 

authority for Canada, notified us that an 

unsafe condition may exist on certain 

Bombardier Model CL–600–2C10 

(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), 

CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), 

and CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 

900) airplanes. TCCA advises that it has 

received several reports of the Camloc 

fasteners on the sidewall of the center 

pedestal fully disengaging and 

interfering with an inboard rudder 

pedal. These incidents occurred on 

Bombardier Model CL–600–2B19 

(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 

airplanes. In one incident, the rudder 

jammed during an approach due to a 

disengaged Camloc fastener that 

restricted movement of the pilot’s 

inboard rudder pedal and tow brake. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

reduce directional controllability of the 

airplane. 

The subject configuration on certain 

Bombardier Model CL–600–2C10 

(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), 

CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), 

and CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 

900) airplanes is almost identical to that 

on the affected Model CL–600–2B19 

(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 

airplanes. Therefore, those Model CL–

600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, 

& 702), CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet 

Series 705), and CL–600–2D24 (Regional 

Jet Series 900) airplanes may be subject 

to the unsafe condition revealed on the 

Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet 

Series 100 & 440) airplanes. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier has issued Service 

Bulletin 670BA–25–037, Revision A, 

dated August 25, 2005. The service 

bulletin describes procedures for 

replacing, with screws and nut plate 

assemblies, the Camloc fasteners on the 

left and right sidewalls of the center 

pedestal. Accomplishing the actions 

specified in the service information is 

intended to adequately address the 

unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the 

service information and issued 

Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

2005–31, dated August 17, 2005, to 

ensure the continued airworthiness of 

these airplanes in Canada.