14346 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

oscillation of an aeroelastic vibration 

mode that is shown to be a stable limit 

cycle oscillation (LCO), with the system 

operative and inoperative. (An LCO is 

considered ‘‘stable’’ if it maintains the 

same frequency and amplitude for a 

given excitation input and flight 

condition.) In addition, the type of 

sustained oscillation covered by this 

special condition must not be a hazard 

to the airplane nor its occupants with 

the active system failed. These systems 

must be shown to reduce the amplitude 

of the sustained oscillation to acceptable 

levels and effectively control the 

aeroelastic instability. 

Specifically, the following criteria 

address the existence of such a 

sustained oscillation on the Boeing 

Model 747–8/–8F airplanes and the 

Outboard Aileron Modal Suppression 

(OAMS) system that will be used to 

control it. 

2. In lieu of the requirements 

contained in § 25.629, the existence of a 

sustained, or limit cycle, oscillation that 

is controlled by an active flight control 

system is acceptable, provided that the 

following requirements are met: 

(a) OAMS System Inoperative 

(1) The sustained, or limit cycle, 

oscillation must be shown by test and 

analysis to be stable throughout the 

nominal aeroelastic stability envelope 

specified in § 25.629(b)(1) with the 

OAMS system inoperative. This should 

include the consideration of 

disturbances above the sustained 

amplitude of oscillation 

(b) Nominal Conditions: 

(1) With the OAMS system operative 

it must be shown that the airplane 

remains safe, stable, and controllable 

throughout the nominal aeroelastic 

stability envelope specified in 

§ 25.629(b)(1) by providing adequate 

suppression of the aeroelastic modes 

being controlled. All applicable 

airworthiness and environmental 

requirements should continue to be 

complied with. Additionally, loads 

imposed on the airplane due to any 

amplitude of oscillation must be shown 

to have a negligible impact on structure 

and systems, including wear, fatigue 

and damage tolerance. The OAMS 

system must function properly in all 

environments that may be encountered. 

(2) The applicant must establish by 

test and analysis that the OAMS system 

can be relied upon to control and limit 

the sustained amplitude of the 

oscillation to acceptable levels (per 

§ 25.251) and control the stability of the 

aeroelastic mode. This should include 

the consideration of disturbances above 

the sustained amplitude of oscillation; 

maneuvering flight, icing conditions; 

manufacturing variations; Master 

Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) 

items; spare engine carriage; engine 

removed or inoperative ferry flights; and 

wear, repairs, and modifications 

throughout the service life of the 

airplane by: 

(i) Analysis to the nominal aeroelastic 

stability envelope specified in 

§ 25.629(b)(1), and 

(ii) Flight flutter test to the VDF/MDF

boundary. These tests must demonstrate 

that the airplane has a proper margin of 

damping for disturbances above the 

sustained amplitude of oscillation at all 

speeds up to VDF/MDF, and that there is 

no large and rapid reduction in damping 

as VDF/MDF is approached. 

(iii) The structural modes must have 

adequate stability margins for any 

OAMS flight control system feedback 

loop at speeds up to the fail-safe 

aeroelastic stability envelope specified 

in § 25.629(b)(2). 

(c) Failures, Malfunctions, and 

Adverse Conditions: 

(1) For the OAMS system operative 

and failed, for any failure, or 

combination of failures not shown to be 

extremely improbable, and addressed by 

§§ 25.629(d), 25.571, 25.631, 25.671, 

25.672, 25.901(c) or 25.1309 that results 

in LCO, it must be established by test or 

analysis up to the aeroelastic stability 

envelope specified in § 25.629(b)(2) that 

the LCO: 

(i) is stable and decays to an 

acceptable limited amplitude once an 

external perturbing force is removed; 

(ii) does not result in loads that would 

cause static, dynamic, or fatigue failure 

of structure during the expected 

exposure period; 

(iii) does not result in repeated loads 

that would cause an additional failure 

due to wear during the expected 

exposure period that precludes safe 

flight and landing; 

(iv) has, if necessary, sufficient 

indication of OAMS failure(s) and crew 

procedures to properly address the 

failure(s); 

(v) does not result in a vibration 

condition on the flight deck that is 

severe enough to interfere with control 

of the airplane, ability of the crew to 

read the flight instruments, perform 

vital functions like reading and 

accomplishing checklist procedures, or 

to cause excessive fatigue to the crew; 

(vi) does not result in adverse effects 

on the flight control system or on 

airplane stability, controllability, or 

handling characteristics (including 

airplane-pilot coupling (APC) per 

§ 25.143) that would prevent safe flight 

and landing; and 

(vii) does not interfere with the flight 

crew’s ability to correctly distinguish 

vibration from buffeting associated with 

the recognition of stalls or high speed 

buffet. 

(2) The applicant must show that 

particular risks such as engine failure, 

uncontained engine, or APU rotor burst, 

or other failures not shown to be 

extremely improbable, will not 

adversely or significantly change the 

aeroelastic stability characteristics of the 

airplane. 

(3) No MMEL dispatch is allowed 

with the OAMS system inoperative. 

Issued in Renton, Washington on March 9, 

2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6073 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0231; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–003–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond 

Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

Cracks have been reportedly found on DA 

42 Main Landing Gear (MLG) Damper-toTrailing Arm joints during standard 

maintenance. Depending on environmental-, 

operating- and runway conditions, the 

affected MLG joint, Part Number (P/N) D60– 

3217–23–5x (4 different lengths are 

available), which is made of aluminum, is 

susceptible to cracking. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, may lead to failure of the joint and 

subsequent damage or malfunction of the 

MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the 

aeroplane during landing and injury to 

occupants. 

The proposed AD would require 

actions that are intended to address the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14347 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Diamond 

Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. OttoStra+e 5, A–2700 Wiener Neustadt, 

Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: 

+43 2622 26780; e-mail: 

office@diamond-air.at; Internet: http:// 

www.diamond-air.at. You may review 

copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 816–329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 

329–4090; e-mail: mike.kiesov@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0231; Directorate Identifier 

2011–CE–003–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 

2011–0020, dated February 7, 2011 

(referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to 

correct an unsafe condition for the 

specified products. The MCAI states: 

Cracks have been reportedly found on DA 

42 Main Landing Gear (MLG) Damper-toTrailing Arm joints during standard 

maintenance. Depending on environmental-, 

operating- and runway conditions, the 

affected MLG joint, Part Number (P/N) D60– 

3217–23–5x (4 different lengths are 

available), which is made of aluminum, is 

susceptible to cracking. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, may lead to failure of the joint and 

subsequent damage or malfunction of the 

MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the 

aeroplane during landing and injury to 

occupants. 

To address this unsafe condition, EASA 

issued AD 2010–0155 to require repetitive 

inspections of the MLG joint and, depending 

on findings, replacement with a serviceable 

part. Since that AD was issued, DAI 

developed an improved design MLG joint, P/ 

N D64–3217–23–0x (also 4 different lengths 

available), which is made of steel and less 

susceptible to cracking. 

For the reasons described above, this new 

AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 

2010–0155R1, which is superseded, and adds 

the terminating action requirement to modify 

the aeroplane by installing the improved 

steel part. This new AD also prohibits reinstallation of the aluminum part. 

You may obtain further information 

by examining the MCAI in the AD 

docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH 

has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. MSB 42–088/2, dated February 3, 

2011, and Work Instruction WI–MSB 

42–088, dated February 3, 2011. The 

actions described in this service 

information are intended to correct the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with this State of 

Design Authority, they have notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a NOTE within the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

will affect 162 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 1 work-hour per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $729 per 

product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $131,868, or $814 per 

product. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14348 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 this 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 proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

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 AD: 

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket 

No. FAA–2011–0231; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–003–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by May 2, 

2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes, all 

serial numbers, certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Cracks have been reportedly found on DA 

42 Main Landing Gear (MLG) Damper-toTrailing Arm joints during standard 

maintenance. Depending on environmental-, 

operating- and runway conditions, the 

affected MLG joint, Part Number (P/N) D60– 

3217–23–5x (4 different lengths are 

available), which is made of aluminum, is 

susceptible to cracking. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, may lead to failure of the joint and 

subsequent damage or malfunction of the 

MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the 

aeroplane during landing and injury to 

occupants. 

To address this unsafe condition, EASA 

issued AD 2010–0155 to require repetitive 

inspections of the MLG joint and, depending 

on findings, replacement with a serviceable 

part. Since that AD was issued, DAI 

developed an improved design MLG joint, P/ 

N D64–3217–23–0x (also 4 different lengths 

available), which is made of steel and less 

susceptible to cracking. 

For the reasons described above, this new 

AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 

2010–0155R1, which is superseded, and adds 

the terminating action requirement to modify 

the aeroplane by installing the improved 

steel part. This new AD also prohibits reinstallation of the aluminum part. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions following Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. MSB 42–088/2, dated February 3, 2011; 

and Work Instruction WI–MSB 42–088, dated 

February 3, 2011: 

(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

after the effective date of this AD, replace 

each main landing gear (MLG) joint P/N D60– 

3217–23–5x with a MLG joint P/N D64– 

3217–23–0x. 

(2) After the effective date of this AD, all 

replacements of MLG joint P/N D60–3217– 

23–5x must be done with MLG joint P/N 

D64–3217–23–0x. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: EASA 

originally established an initial and repetitive 

inspection of the MLG joint part. We are not 

establishing an initial or repetitive 

inspection, and instead we are just requiring 

a mandatory one-time replacement of the part 

within 100 hours TIS after the effective date 

of this AD. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

Attn: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 329– 

4090. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2011– 

0020, dated February 7, 2011; Diamond 

Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service 

Bulletin No. MSB 42–088/2, dated February 

3, 2011; and Work Instruction WI–MSB 42– 

088, dated February 3, 2011, for related 

information. For service information related 

to this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra+e 5, A–2700 

Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 

2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; e-mail: 

office@diamond-air.at; Internet: http:// 

www.diamond-air.at. You may review copies 

of the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 816–329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on March 

10, 2011. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6096 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS