336 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–17–AD; Amendment

39–9104; AD 94–26–09]

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model L–1011–385 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Lockheed Model

L–1011–385 series airplanes, that

requires an initial servicing or overhaul

of the ram air turbine (RAT), and

incorporating repetitive overhaul

actions into the FAA-approved

maintenance program. This amendment

is prompted by reports indicating that,

during routine maintenance of the RAT,

the turbine blade assembly separated

during spin tests. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to prevent

separation of the turbine blade

assembly, which could damage the

airplane structure and systems, and,

under certain circumstances, could lead

to reduced controllability of the

airplane.

DATES: Effective February 3, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February 3,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Lockheed Aeronautical Systems

Support Company, Field Support

Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251

Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia

30080. 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 FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, Campus Building,

1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–160,

College Park, Georgia; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,

Flight Test Branch, ACE–160A, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite

2–160, College Park, Georgia 30337–

2748; telephone (404) 305–7367; fax

(404) 305–7348.

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 Lockheed

Model L–1011–385 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

April 25, 1994 (59 FR 19683). That

action proposed to require an initial

servicing or overhaul of the ram air

turbine (RAT), and incorporating

repetitive overhaul actions into the

FAA-approved maintenance program.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter supports the

proposal.

The Air Transport Association (ATA)

of America, on behalf of some of its

member operators, suggests that the

proposal be withdrawn because it is ‘‘an

inappropriate use of the airworthiness

directive.’’ This commenter states that

AD’s are not the proper vehicle for

addressing maintenance problems. The

commenter points out that the AD is

based on failures that have been

reported, not during service, but during

routine maintenance of the RAT.

Further, the commenter states that the

FAA’s analysis identifies the problem

area as the turbine blade assembly, and

the maintenance deficiency as lack of

lubrication; yet the FAA’s proposed

corrective action is a complete overhaul

of the unit. The commenter questions

whether the FAA considered a ‘‘simpler

remedy,’’ such as a periodic lubrication

requirement or increased frequency of

functional checks. The commenter

requests that the FAA examine vehicles

other than the AD to ensure that

appropriate maintenance is performed.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to withdraw the

AD, nor does it concur with the

commenter’s implication that the AD is

not the proper vehicle for addressing the

unsafe condition. According to section

39.1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(FAR) (14 CFR 39.1), the issuance of an

AD is based on the finding that an

unsafe condition is likely to exist or

develop in aircraft of a particular type

design. The responsibilities placed on

the FAA by the Federal Aviation Act do

not limit it from making any unsafe

condition—whether resulting from

maintenance, design defect, or

otherwise—the proper subject of an AD.

Therefore, regardless of the cause or the

source of an unsafe condition, the FAA

has the authority to issue an AD when

it is found that an unsafe condition is

likely to exist or develop on other

products of the same type design.

Further, it is within the FAA’s

authority to issue AD’s to require

actions to address unsafe conditions

that are not otherwise being addressed

(or addressed adequately) by normal

maintenance procedures. The FAA may

address such unsafe conditions by

requiring revisions to maintenance

programs as a condition under which

airplanes may continue to be operated.

While the subject of this AD relates to

a problem with the RAT assembly that

was identified during regular

maintenance procedures, the FAA

points out that reports of this problem

came from several different operators.

From the data garnered from these

reports, the FAA has identified the

existence of an unsafe condition.

Although the unsafe condition is one

that, feasibly, could have been

addressed by the operators’

maintenance programs, it is obvious that

the current maintenance programs are

inadequate in addressing it. In light of

this, the unsafe condition is likely to

exist or develop in the affected

airplanes. As a result, the FAA is

issuing this AD to eliminate the unsafe

condition by revising the maintenance

programs accordingly. The AD is the

appropriate vehicle for mandating such

actions.

The FAA acknowledges that some

operators currently may have better

maintenance programs that address an

unsafe condition. If a program is

adequate, an operator would already be

in compliance with the AD, or would be

in a position to obtain an approval for

an alternative method of compliance

with the AD (i.e., to follow the

operator’s current program rather than

revise it to comply with the AD). The

obligation of the FAA to issue the AD

and address an unsafe condition

remains, however, and the rule must

apply to everyone to ensure that all

affected airplanes are covered,

regardless of who operates them.

In developing this AD action, the FAA

did consider optional actions to address

strictly the bearing lubrication problem.

However, in reviewing the available

data, the FAA found that there were no

mandatory replacement or

refurbishment times for the RAT in the

majority of affected operators’

maintenance programs. Under normal

maintenance procedures, the RAT’s are

functionally tested on the an average of

every 48 months or 4,000 flights (at a

‘‘D’’ check). In cases where operators

had replaced or refurbished the RAT’s,

those actions were accomplished ‘‘on

condition’’ only, that is, after the RAT’s

had failed certain functional (spin-up)

testing. In the reported incidents, the

RAT’s had not been serviced, nor had

functional testing indicated that they

needed servicing, since new. It is likely

that RAT’s have been installed on many

other affected airplanes, and have had
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 337

no servicing whatsoever since delivery

that would ensure adequate lubrication

of the turbine bearing. In light of this,

the FAA has clearly identified an unsafe

condition that must be addressed by the

actions specified by this AD to be

incorporated in the operators’

maintenance programs.

Further, the FAA points out that the

normal means for air carriers to comply

with AD’s such as this is to incorporate

the repetitive requirements into their

approved maintenance program.

Therefore, the FAA could accomplish

this same result by enumerating the

specific overhaul/servicing actions

identified by the maintenance program

revision. However, from an

administrative point of view, there is a

distinct advantage in requiring a

maintenance program revision. By

imposing the overhaul/servicing

requirements, compliance with the AD

with respect to each action would have

to be recorded in the operator’s

maintenance records; whereas, in the

case of this AD, the only required

recording of the compliance relates to

the one-time changes in the

maintenance program required by

paragraph (b) of the rule.

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to require only a

one-time inspection and servicing of the

RAT. Data gathered from the results of

the inspection could then be evaluated

to determine the condition of the fleet

and if additional actions are warranted.

This commenter believes that the

reported bearing failures were isolated

incidents, and that issuance of the

proposed AD is an ‘‘overreaction’’ to

these reports. The FAA does not concur.

From data already obtained, the FAA

has determined that a sufficient number

of failures have occurred which clearly

indicate that the RAT installed in the

Model L–1011–385 is likely to develop

problems in the turbine bearing unless

measures are implemented to

periodically lubricate the bearing.

Issuance of this AD is the result of that

determination.

One commenter supports the intent of

the proposed rule, but requests that

proposed paragraph (b) be revised to

delete the requirement for a complete

overhaul of the RAT every eight years.

The commenter considers this to be

excessive. The commenter states that

the turbine separation problems, like

those that have occurred, should be

correctable by periodically performing

only the servicing procedures in

accordance with Lockheed TriStar L–

1011 Service Bulletin 093–29–098,

dated December 6, 1993 (reference

Dowty Service Bulletin RAT16C10–29–

168). The FAA concurs that the

servicing procedures are acceptable in

ensuring that the addressed problems

associated with the turbine blade

assembly are monitored and corrected

in a timely manner. Accordingly, the

FAA has revised paragraph (b) to

provide operators with the option of

accomplishing either the complete

overhaul of the RAT or the servicing

procedures, at eight-year intervals.

Another commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to allow RAT’s that

have been overhauled previously in

accordance with Dowty Overhaul

Manual 29–21–01 to be considered in

compliance with the AD, even though

the overhaul manual does not call for

the replacement of the roller bearing,

part number RA56341. The commenter

states that the lubrication problem

addressed by the proposed AD occurs

mainly in the turbine ball bearing (part

number 601017118), not the roller

bearing. The Dowty Overhaul Manual

does not call for replacement of the

roller bearing if it is still serviceable;

however, Lockheed TriStar L–1011

Service Bulletin 093–29–098, dated

December 6, 1993, which was cited in

the proposed rule, calls for the

replacement of the roller bearing,

regardless of its condition. The FAA

does not concur with the commenter’s

request. The replacement of the roller

bearing, as called for in the referenced

service bulletin, is necessary because of

corrosion damage problems that can

occur in the roller bearing. This

corrosion damage may be difficult to

detect by visual inspection alone; thus,

initial replacement of the bearing

(during overhaul) is all the more

important. However, this corrosion

problem will be monitored and

corrected, if necessary, during the

regular repetitive servicing or overhaul

(every eight years) required by this AD.

In light of this, inspection and

reinstallation of both the roller and ball

bearings, if serviceable, would be

acceptable at the recurrent actions

required by the AD. A note has been

added to the final rule to clarify that

replacement of the roller bearing is

necessary when initially overhauling

the RAT.

The FAA has recently reviewed the

figures it has used over the past several

years in calculating the economic

impact of AD activity. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA has

determined that it is necessary to

increase the labor rate used in these

calculations from $55 per work hour to

$60 per work hour. The cost estimate

information, below has been revised to

reflect this increase in the specified

hourly labor rate.

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Estimate

There are approximately 236

Lockheed Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

117 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

For operators electing to service the

RAT, it will take approximately 48 work

hours per RAT to accomplish those

actions, at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Based on these figures,

the total cost impact of the servicing

actions on U.S. operators is estimated to

be $2,880 per RAT.

For operators electing to overhaul the

RAT, it will take approximately 170

work hours per RAT to accomplish

those actions, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

overhaul actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $10,200 per RAT.

The number of work hours that will

be required to perform either the

servicing or overhaul of the RAT, as

indicated above, is presented as if those

actions were to be accomplished as

‘‘stand alone’’ actions. However, in

actual practice, these actions for the

most part could be accomplished

coincidentally or in combination with

normally scheduled airplane

inspections and other maintenance

program tasks. Therefore, the actual

number of any necessary additional

work hours will be minimal in many

instances. Additionally, any costs

associated with special airplane

scheduling will be minimal.

Incorporation of the requirements of

this AD into the FAA-approved

maintenance program will require

approximately 40 work hours per

operator to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

incorporation of the maintenance

program change on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $2,400 per operator.

The FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.
338 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, most

prudent operators would accomplish

the required actions even if they were

not required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this AD. As a

matter of law, in order to be airworthy,

an aircraft must conform to its type

design and be in a condition for safe

operation. The type design is approved

only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

AD, makes a finding of an unsafe

condition, this means that the original

cost-beneficial level of safety is no

longer being achieved and that the

required actions are necessary to restore

that level of safety. Because this level of

safety has already been determined to be

cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit

analysis for this AD would be redundant

and unnecessary.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

94–26–09 Lockhead: Amendment 39–9104.

Docket 94–NM–17–AD.

Applicability: Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes having serial numbers 193A

through 193Y inclusive, 293A through 293F

inclusive, and 1002 through 1250 inclusive;

certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent separation of the turbine blade

assembly, which could damage the airplane

structure and systems, and, under certain

circumstances, lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Remove, disassemble, inspect, test, and

service the ram air turbine (RAT) in

accordance with Lockheed TriStar L–1011

Service Bulletin 093–29–098, dated

December 6, 1993; or completely overhaul

the RAT in accordance with Chapter 29–21–

01 of Dowty Aerospace Hydraulics—

Cheltenham Overhaul Manual; at the

applicable time specified in either paragraph

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD:

Note 1: Overhaul of the RAT in accordance

with this paragraph includes replacement of

the roller bearing (part number RA56341).

(1) For airplanes on which the RAT has not

been serviced or overhauled within 6 years

prior to the effective date of this AD:

Accomplish the procedures within 2 years

after the effective date of this AD.

(2) For airplanes on which the RAT has

been serviced or overhauled within 6 years

prior to the effective date of this AD in

accordance with a method that is equivalent

to the procedures described in Dowty

Aerospace Hydraulics—Cheltenham Service

Bulletin RAT16C10–29–168, dated December

1, 1993: Accomplish the procedures within 8

years after the date of the immediately

preceding servicing of the RAT.

(b) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, revise the FAA-approved

maintenance program to incorporate

procedures for servicing of the RAT in

accordance with Lockheed TriStar L–1011

Service Bulletin 093–29–098, dated

December 6, 1993; or complete overhaul of

the RAT in accordance with Chapter 29–21–

01 of Dowty Aerospace Hydraulics—

Cheltenham Overhaul Manual. One or the

other of these actions must be accomplished

at intervals not to exceed 8 years.

(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, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(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.

(e) The servicing actions shall be done in

accordance with Lockheed TriStar L–1011

Service Bulletin 093–29–098, dated

December 6, 1993. 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 Lockheed Aeronautical

Systems Support Company, Field Support

Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake

Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080. Copies

may be inspected at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Small

Airplane Directorate, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–160, College Park,

Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

February 3, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 19, 1994.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–52 Filed 1–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 94–AGL–24]

Alteration of VOR Federal Airway V–

216

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends the

airspace designation for Federal Airway

V–216 by realigning the airway from the

Peck, MI, Very High Frequency