AD 2014-05-16

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15660-15665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04852]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1318; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-104-AD; 
Amendment 39-17789; AD 2014-05-16]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 
The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F 
series airplanes, and Model 767 series airplanes, powered by General 
Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 engines. This AD was prompted by reports of 
failure of the electro mechanical brake flexshaft (short flexshaft) of 
the thrust reverser actuation system (TRAS). This AD requires replacing 
the short flexshaft on each engine with a new short flexshaft, testing 
of the electro mechanical brake and center drive unit (CDU) cone brake 
to verify the holding torque, and performing related investigative and 
corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent an 
uncommanded in-flight thrust reverser deployment and consequent loss of 
control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 25, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 25, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: For Boeing service information identified in this AD, 
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 
Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet <a href="https://www.myboeingfleet.com">https://www.myboeingfleet.com</a>.
    For Middle River Aircraft Systems service information identified in 
this AD, contact Middle River Aircraft Systems, 103 Chesapeake Park 
Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21220; telephone 410-682-1500; fax 410-682-1230; 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bad3d4dcd5fad7c8dbc99786db9ad2c8dfdc87" http: usa.com">usa.com</a>">info@mras-<a href="http://usa.com">usa.com</a></a>; Internet <a href="http://www.mras-usa.com/contact.html">http://www.mras-usa.com/contact.html</a>.
    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

[[Page 15661]]

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, 
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f7b5a4148017b5d4e416f494e4e01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e2a0b1019502a0c1f103e181f1f50191108">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company 
Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F series airplanes, 
and Model 767 series airplanes, powered by General Electric (GE) CF6-
80C2 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 16, 
2013 (78 FR 3363). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failure of the 
electro mechanical brake flexshaft (short flexshaft) of the thrust 
reverser actuation system (TRAS). The NPRM proposed to require 
replacing the short flexshaft on each engine with a new short 
flexshaft, testing of the electro-mechanical brake and center drive 
unit (CDU) cone brake to verify the holding torque, and performing 
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are 
issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded in-flight thrust reverser 
deployment and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
(78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Applicability and Reliability Difference Between 
Engine Models

    Air France Industries asked if the thrust reversers on GE CF6-80E1 
powered airplanes are addressed by the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 
2013), and if the flexshaft reliability difference between GE CF6-80C2 
and CF6-80E1 engines is due to the systematic introduction of the 
double P-Seal on translating cowls on GE CF6-80E1 engines.
    We agree to clarify why the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) did 
not address the GE CF6-80E1 thrust reversers. This final rule was 
prompted by reports of failure of the electro-mechanical brake 
flexshaft (short flexshaft) of the TRAS on Model 747 and Model 767 
airplanes powered by GE CF6-80C2 engines. Therefore, we did not conduct 
a safety assessment on airplanes powered by GE CF6-80E1 engines. We 
have not determined that the double P-Seal was a contributing factor to 
the failure of the flexshaft on GE CF6-80C2 engines. We are aware that 
this defective flexshaft could be installed on other engines. We have 
contacted the appropriate office to address the safety concerns 
regarding this defective flexshaft on other airplane models, and might 
consider additional rulemaking if an unsafe condition is identified on 
other engines. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Include Additional Service Information

    UPS requested that we allow the use of Middle River Aircraft 
Systems (MRAS) CF6-80C2B Service Bulletin 78-1168, Revision 1, dated 
August 26, 2010, to comply with the flexshaft replacement proposed by 
paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013). UPS stated 
that it has fully complied with the flexshaft replacement requirement 
using this service information.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Since we issued the NPRM (78 
FR 3363, January 16, 2013), we have determined that flexshaft 
replacements done in accordance with Middle River Aircraft Systems CF6-
80C2B Service Bulletin 78-1168, Revision 1, dated August 26, 2010; and 
Revision 2, dated April 19, 2011; meet the intent of this final rule. 
We have changed paragraph (g) of this final rule to include Middle 
River Aircraft Systems CF6-80C2B Service Bulletin 78-1168, Revision 2, 
dated April 19, 2011, as an appropriate source of service information; 
and we have also added new paragraph (m) to this final rule to provide 
credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this final rule 
using Middle River Aircraft Systems CF6-80C2B Service Bulletin 78-1168, 
Revision 1, dated August 26, 2010. We have redesignated subsequent 
paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Update Parts Cost

    MRAS provided current cost data and requested that we update the 
estimated parts costs accordingly.
    We agree to update the estimated parts costs. We have changed the 
estimated parts cost to $4,031 for each flexshaft, which changes the 
estimated parts cost to $32,248 for a Model 747 airplane, and to 
$16,124 for a Model 767 airplane.

Request To Change Parts Installation Prohibition Paragraph

    Boeing and MRAS requested that we change paragraph (k) of the NPRM 
(78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013), which would prohibit installation of 
part number (P/N) 3278500-( ), on any airplane, to specify that this 
prohibition applies only to Boeing airplanes. MRAS stated that P/N 
3278500-( ) is still certified on Airbus Model A330 airplanes.
    We partially agree with the commenters' request. This final rule 
applies only to the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this final 
rule. Paragraph (k) of this final rule specifies ``any airplane,'' 
which refers to the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this final 
rule. However, to add clarity to this final rule, we have revised 
paragraph (k) of this final rule to specify that the parts prohibition 
applies only to the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this final 
rule.

Request To Clarify CDU Cone Brake Replacement Action

    Boeing and MRAS requested that we change the fifth paragraph of the 
Relevant Service Information section of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 
16, 2013), which specified that the corrective action for a CDU cone 
brake test failure is replacement of the CDU cone brake with a new CDU 
cone brake. The commenters stated that the cone brake is not a line-
replaceable unit (LRU), and that if a CDU cone brake fails, the entire 
CDU must be replaced with a serviceable CDU. MRAS stated that the cone 
brake within the CDU can be replaced only in a component maintenance 
shop.
    We agree that the cone brake is not an LRU, and that the corrective 
action for a CDU cone brake test failure is replacement of the CDU with 
a new or serviceable CDU. Paragraph (i) of this final rule requires 
doing the corrective action for a failed cone brake functional test in 
accordance with certain applicable service information, which does 
specify replacing the CDU--not just the cone brake--after a failed 
test. The Relevant Service Information

[[Page 15662]]

paragraph of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) is not repeated in 
this final rule; therefore, we have not changed this final rule in this 
regard.

Request To Extend the Repetitive Inspection Interval

    Air New Zealand (ANZ) requested that we extend the repetitive 
inspection interval specified in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, 
January 16, 2013) to 3,000 flight hours or greater. ANZ cited several 
previous alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) approvals for issued 
ADs to extend the inspection intervals on the thrust reverser CDU cone 
brake and the electro-mechanical brakes.
    We do not agree to extend the repetitive inspection interval 
proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) to 3,000 flight 
hours or greater. The AMOC extension to inspection intervals to 3,000 
flight hours or greater was granted based on a fault tree analysis that 
assumed the engine cowl anti-ice system was causing the short flexshaft 
to fail. We now have enough data to invalidate that assumption. As part 
of the certification process of the new flexshaft, the system safety 
analyses on all Model 747 and Model 767 airplanes with GE CF6-80C2 
engines were refined, and the predicted failure rate from the 
comparative testing was used. We have determined that we could meet 
average and specific risk requirements with an inspection interval of 
2,000 flight hours for both the CDU cone brake and TRAS lock flexshaft. 
Therefore, we have determined that a repetitive inspection interval of 
2,000 flight hours is necessary to address the unsafe condition. We 
have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Combine Multiple ADs Into One AD

    ANZ requested that we combine the following ADs into one new AD to 
reduce the complexity of multiple regulatory requirements.
    <bullet> AD 2003-16-16, Amendment 39-13269 (68 FR 51439, August 27, 
2003).
    <bullet> AD 2000-15-04, Amendment 39-11833 (65 FR 47252, August 2, 
2000).
    <bullet> AD 2000-09-04, Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 4, 
2000).
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree with the 
commenter about the complexity of complying with multiple regulatory 
requirements. We disagree with the request to combine the requirements 
of these ADs into one new AD, because this final rule is not the proper 
venue for addressing this issue. We are issuing this final rule to 
require replacement of the short flexshaft with a better and more 
reliable part. We have considered the previous rulemaking by allowing 
this new part replacement and repetitive inspections to be a 
terminating action for the repetitive inspections set by previous ADs, 
as specified in paragraph (j) of this final rule. We have not changed 
this final rule in this regard.

Request To Add Airplanes to the Applicability

    Boeing requested that we include Model 767 airplanes powered by GE 
CF6-80C2 engines in the applicability of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 
16, 2013); and require all production airplanes to do the requirements 
of paragraph (h) of the NPRM. Boeing stated that AD 2000-09-04, 
Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 5, 2000), which is applicable to 
Model 767 airplanes powered by GE CF6-80C2 engines, mandates the 
inspection of the TRAS lock flexshaft and CDU cone brake at 1,000 
hours, and that these airplanes should be able to use the extended 
2,000-hour TRAS lock flexshaft and CDU tests granted in the NPRM.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. Adding airplanes to the 
applicability would necessitate (under the provisions of the 
Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the 
comment period, considering additional comments subsequently received, 
and eventually issuing a final rule. In consideration of the amount of 
time that has already elapsed since issuance of the original notice (78 
FR 3363, January 16, 2013), we have determined that further delay of 
this final rule is not appropriate. However, we might consider further 
rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this final rule in this 
regard.

Request To Allow Dispatch of an Airplane With a Failed CDU Cone Brake 
Check

    Boeing requested that we allow a master minimum equipment list 
(MMEL) dispatch of an airplane when a CDU cone brake check fails. 
Boeing stated that a certain FAA AMOC approval letter already allows 
for an MMEL dispatch of an airplane when only the CDU cone brake check 
fails.
    We agree with the commenter's request. The electro-mechanical brake 
provides an additional level of protection against the inadvertent in-
flight deployment of the thrust reverser. We have added new paragraph 
(l) to this final rule, which specifies that in the event of a CDU cone 
brake failure, an airplane may be operated as specified in the 
operator's FAA-approved minimum equipment list, provided that certain 
conditions are met. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs 
accordingly.

Requests for Terminating Action

    Boeing requested we specify that the functional tests in paragraph 
(h) of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) terminate the functional 
test requirements of paragraph (e), as well as paragraph (f), of AD 
2000-09-04, Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 4, 2000).
    Delta Airlines requested we specify that the functional tests in 
paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) terminate the 
requirements of paragraph (a), as well as paragraph (e), of AD 2003-16-
16, Amendment 39-13269 (68 FR 51439, August 27, 2003).
    We agree with the commenters' requests. The functional tests 
required by paragraph (h) of this final rule address the tests required 
by the AD requirements cited by the commenters. We have changed 
paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(3) of this final rule, as specified by the 
commenter.

Request for Credit for Previous Actions

    Atlas Air requested that we give credit for the actions required by 
paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013), if those 
actions were done before the effective date of this AD using the 
service information specified in paragraph (h) of the NPRM.
    Specifying credit for the actions done before the effective date of 
this final rule using the same service information specified in 
paragraph (h) of this final rule is unnecessary. Paragraph (f) of this 
final rule specifies to comply with the AD within the compliance times 
specified, unless already done. We have not changed this final rule in 
this regard.

Requests for Clarification of Installation Instructions

    American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise paragraph (g) of 
the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) to clarify that the 
installation instructions for the new short flexshaft contain a lower 
torque value than the torque value specified in AD 2000-09-04, 
Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 4, 2000), and the service 
information referenced in AD 2000-09-04.
    We agree to clarify the installation instructions. The torque value 
for the new short flexshaft installation in paragraph (g) is lower than 
the torque value described for the part specified in AD 2000-09-04, 
Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 4, 2000). We have

[[Page 15663]]

added Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this final rule to clarify this issue.

Request for Clarification of Compliance Time

    AAL requested we clarify that the compliance time of paragraph (h) 
of the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) supersedes the compliance 
times specified in AD 2000-09-04, Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 
4, 2000); Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78A0081, Revision 2, dated April 
19, 2001; and FAA AMOC 140S-03-313, dated December 19, 2003.
    We agree to clarify the compliance time. This final rule does not 
supersede AD 2000-09-04, Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 4, 2000). 
FAA AMOC 140S-03-313, dated December 19, 2003, applies to AD 2000-09-
04, and not to this final rule. We have determined that the functional 
test compliance times specified in paragraph (h) of this final rule are 
necessary to ensure the continued airworthiness of the airplane. Under 
the provisions of paragraph (n) of this final rule, however, we may 
consider requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are 
submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an 
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this 
regard.

Request for Certain Hardware Approvals

    AAL requested that we approve FAA AMOC 140S-12-42, dated March 14, 
2012, as an AMOC to the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013), or 
specifically list the hardware approvals and actions in AMOC 140S-12-42 
dated March 14, 2012, in the NPRM.
    We disagree with the commenter's requests. The commenter did not 
provide data to substantiate that the hardware actions specified in FAA 
AMOC 140S-12-42, dated March 14, 2012, are applicable to the new short 
flexshaft installation required by this final rule. Under the 
provisions of paragraph (n) of this final rule, however, we will 
consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are 
submitted to substantiate that alternative hardware requirements would 
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final 
rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial 
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
    <bullet> Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) for correcting the unsafe 
condition; and
    <bullet> Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the 
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 298 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement Model 747 airplanes....  8 work-hours x $85 per hour         $32,248         $32,928      $2,370,816
(72 airplanes).....................   = $680.
Replacement Model 767 airplanes....  4 work-hours x $85 per hour          16,124          16,464       3,720,864
(226 airplanes)....................   = $340.
Functional test....................  12 work-hours x $85 per                   0           1,020          73,440
Model 747 airplanes................   hour = $1,020.
(72 airplanes).....................
Functional test....................  12 work-hours x $85 per                   0           1,020         230,520
Model 767 airplanes................   hour = $1,020.
(226 airplanes)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

[[Page 15664]]

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

2014-05-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17789; Docket No. FAA-
2012-1318; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-104-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 25, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2003-16-16, Amendment 39-13269 (68 FR 51439, 
August 27, 2003); AD 2000-15-04, Amendment 39-11833 (65 FR 47252, 
August 2, 2000); and AD 2000-09-04, Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, 
May 4, 2000).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in 
any category, powered by General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 engines, as 
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F 
series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
747-78A2185, dated October 26, 2010.
    (2) Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, as 
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-78A0100, dated 
October 26, 2010.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7830, Thrust 
reverser.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the electro-
mechanical brake flexshaft (short flexshaft) of the thrust reverser 
actuation system (TRAS). We are issuing this AD to prevent an 
uncommanded in-flight thrust reverser deployment and consequent loss 
of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Flexible Drive Shaft Replacement

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace 
the short flexshaft on each thrust reverser half of each engine with 
a new short flexshaft, in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-78A2185, dated 
October 26, 2010; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-78A0100, 
dated October 26, 2010; as applicable; or Middle River Aircraft 
Systems CF6-80C2B Service Bulletin 78-1168, Revision 2, dated April 
19, 2011.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: The torque value for the 
short flexshaft installation specified in paragraph (g) of this AD 
is lower than the torque value described for the part specified in 
AD 2000-09-04, Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 4, 2000).

(h) Functional Test

    Within 2,000 flight hours after accomplishment of the short 
flexshaft replacements required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do a 
functional test on the electro-mechanical brakes and the cone brake 
of the center drive unit (CDU) to verify the holding torque, on all 
thrust reversers and on all engines, in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78A2166, 
Revision 3, dated July 29, 2004 (for Model 747 airplanes); Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 767-78A0081, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001 
(for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F airplanes); or Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-78A0088, dated April 19, 2001 (for Model 767-
400ER airplanes). Repeat the functional test thereafter at intervals 
not to exceed 2,000 flight hours.

(i) Corrective Action

    If any functional test required by paragraph (h) of this AD 
fails: Before further flight, do related investigative and 
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78A2166, Revision 3, 
dated July 29, 2004 (for Model 747 airplanes); Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-78A0081, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001 (for Model 
767-200, -300, and -300F airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-78A0088, dated April 19, 2001 (for Model 767-400ER 
airplanes); and repeat the applicable test or check until 
successfully accomplished.

(j) Terminating Actions

    (1) Accomplishment of the initial test specified in paragraph 
(h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (e) 
of AD 2003-16-16, Amendment 39-13269 (68 FR 51439, August 27, 2003), 
for Model 747-400 series airplanes powered by GE Model CF6-80C2 
series engines.
    (2) Accomplishment of the initial test specified in paragraph 
(h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 
2000-15-04, Amendment 39-11833 (65 FR 47252, August 2, 2000), for 
Model 747-200 and -300 series airplanes powered by General Electric 
Model CF6-80C2 series engines.
    (3) Accomplishment of the initial test specified in paragraph 
(h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f) 
of AD 2000-09-04, Amendment 39-11712 (65 FR 25833, May 4, 2000), for 
Model 767 series airplanes powered by General Electric Model CF6-
80C2 series engines.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a 
flexshaft having part number 3278500-( ) on any airplane identified 
in paragraph (c) of this AD.

(l) Operation With a CDU Cone Brake Failure

    In the event of a CDU cone brake failure, an airplane may be 
operated as specified in the operator's FAA-approved minimum 
equipment list, provided that the conditions specified in paragraphs 
(l)(1) through (l)(3) of this AD, as applicable, are met.
    (1) Only one CDU cone brake check on any engine thrust reverser 
on the Model 767 airplane has failed.
    (2) The electro-mechanical brake (TRAS lock) on the inoperative 
thrust reverser must be locked in the forward thrust position.
    (3) Since the most recent flight, and before further flight, on 
the affected engine, the electro-mechanical brake (TRAS lock) 
holding torque is determined to be acceptable in accordance with the 
function test specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph 
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective 
date of this AD using Middle River Aircraft Systems CF6-80C2B 
Service Bulletin 78-1168, Revision 1, dated August 26, 2010, which 
is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local 
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. 
Information may be emailed to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecd5c1ada2a1c1bf898d98988089c1adafa3c1ada1a3afc1be899d99899f989fac8a8d8dc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="744d59353a3959271115000018115935373b5935393b37592611050111070007341215155a131b02">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization 
(ODA) that 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.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran, 
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 
98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a0e2f343d740e283b341a3c3b3b743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a1e3f242d641e382b240a2c2b2b642d253c">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not 
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified 
in paragraphs (p)(4) and (p)(5) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed 
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

[[Page 15665]]

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-78A2185, dated October 26, 
2010.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-78A0081, Revision 2, 
dated April 19, 2001.
    (iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-78A0088, dated April 19, 
2001.
    (iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-78A0100, dated October 
26, 2010.
    (v) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78A2166, Revision 3, dated July 
29, 2004.
    (vi) Middle River Aircraft Systems CF6-80C2B Service Bulletin 
78-1168, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2011.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, 
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; 
telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet 
<a href="https://www.myboeingfleet.com">https://www.myboeingfleet.com</a>.
    (4) For Middle River Aircraft Systems service information 
identified in this AD, contact Middle River Aircraft Systems, ATTN: 
Commercial Spares Support, Mail Point 46, 103 Chesapeake Park Plaza, 
Baltimore, MD 21220; fax: 410-682-0090; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#592a29382b3c2a062a2c2929362b2d19342b382a74653879312b3c3f64" http: usa.com">usa.com</a>">spares_support@mras-<a href="http://usa.com">usa.com</a></a>.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 
425-227-1221.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated 
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>.*COM019*


    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 18, 2014.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04852 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P