DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0144; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-232-AD;
Amendment 39-17970; AD 2014-19-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of rudder bearings falling out of the fore rudder
hinge bracket during assembly. This AD requires a proof load test and
detailed inspections; and installation of a new bearing, reaming, or
repair of the bearing if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct improper bearing installation, which could result in
abnormal wear and potential increased freeplay in the rudder system,
and resultant airframe vibration, leading to compromise of the flutter
margins of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 24, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 24,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0144 or in person at the
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.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto,
Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539;
email thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7331; fax 516-794-5531.

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 Bombardier Model
DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16245).
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-34, dated November 1, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, -
401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

It was reported that rudder bearings were falling out of the
fore rudder hinge bracket during assembly. Investigation revealed
the root cause as improper application of the adhesive compound and
the lack of application of sealant during the installation of the
rudder bearings into the fore rudder hinge bracket. The improper
bearing installation, if not corrected, could result in abnormal
wear and could potentially increase the freeplay in the rudder
system. This may result in airframe vibration, eventually
compromising the flutter-margins of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection, and rectification as
required, of the fore rudder bearings in the hinge bracket assembly.

Required actions include a proof load test for slippage and freeplay.
Related investigative actions include a detailed inspection of a
certain bearing for damage, corrosion, and dimension conformity; and a
detailed inspection of the fitting bore of the fore rudder hinge
bracket for wear, damage, corrosion, and dimension conformity.
Corrective actions include installation of a new bearing, reaming, or
repair of the bearing. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-
0144-0002.

Revised Service Information

Since the NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25, 2014) was issued, Bombardier
has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `B', dated February 11,
2014. Among other things, Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44,
Revision `B', dated February 11, 2014, clarifies a note, and corrects a
task number for the operational check of the rudder control system.
We have revised this AD to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
27-44, Revision `B', dated February 11, 2014, as an additional source
of appropriate service information. We also have revised paragraph (i)
of this AD to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision
`A,' dated June 10, 2009, as service information that can be used for
credit for previous accomplishment of certain actions required by this
AD.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 16245, March 25, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Change Airworthy Product Paragraph

Horizon Air requested that we revise the Airworthy Product
paragraph, i.e., paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25,
2014), to either remove or change the sentence that states, in part,
that ``repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD.''
Horizon Air reasoned that the sentence in question places an
unnecessary regulatory burden on operators with airplanes that are
built in Canada. Horizon Air explained that since TCCA is the State
holding Design Authority for Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes, any repairs created by Bombardier would have to be in
compliance with the TCCA AD, and the repair would specifically refer to
the TCCA AD.
The commenter added that the bilateral agreement between Canada and
the United States accepts documents approved by TCCA as meeting the
requirements for FAA-approval. The commenter questioned whether the
U.S. AD number is necessary when the repair is approved by TCCA and the
repair specifically refers to the Canadian AD, and asked what value is
added by specifically referring to the U.S. AD if the repair meets the
approval requirements of the State holding the Design Authority.
Horizon Air noted that the language in paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM (79
FR 16245, March 25, 2014) would force operators that incorporated a
repair method prior to the effective date of the AD to go back to the
manufacturer and request a revision to the repair method to add the
U.S. AD number, even if the repair method referenced the TCCA AD.
Horizon Air also explained that it discussed the statement
concerning repair approvals with Bombardier Aerospace, Toronto. The
Engineering Department management of Bombardier Aerospace, Toronto,
stated they are under the TCCA umbrella, and they can refer only to a
TCCA AD on their repair drawings. If this requirement is retained in
the U.S. AD as written, it would require an operator to somehow have a
repair drawing revised to include the U.S. AD number. This is a
difficult task, considering the manufacturer's stated position that
they currently do not include the U.S. AD number, and they have no
internal processes to add it. The statement in the U.S. AD should allow
the TCCA AD number as an equivalent to the U.S. AD number.
Horizon Air also noted that an operator could pursue an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) but that would add additional time and cost
to compliance. The additional time required for an AMOC will most
likely delay returning the airplanes to service, and if the AMOC is
needed on a weekend or federal holiday, the return to service would
take even longer.
We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the
requirement that repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service
information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact
the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the
Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective
actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-
approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved
by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are
considered to be FAA-approved.
In the NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25, 2014), we proposed to prevent
the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the
unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the
State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to
this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of
compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs
that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe
condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase ``its
delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State
of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable,
to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the
proposed AD.
A related comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), which
applies to certain Airbus airplane models. The commenter stated the
following: ``The proposed wording, being specific to repairs,
eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for
approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during
accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a
method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design
Approval Organization (DAO).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed
with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is
issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
Based on these comments, we removed from this AD the requirement
that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before
adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with
affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure
that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in
an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD
rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when
appropriate.
We have also decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or the ``DAH with State of Design Authority
design organization approval,'' but instead we will provide the
specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority
for the DAH throughout this AD.

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:
Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25, 2014).
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 78 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 7 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $46,410, or $595 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $155, for a cost of
$835 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this action.

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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0144; 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 street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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:

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.

Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

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