20894 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Secretary under delegated authority, April 8, 

2011. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9002 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0360; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–CE–061–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Univair 

Aircraft Corporation Models (ERCO) 

415–C, 415–CD, 415–D, E, G; (Forney) 

F–1 and F–1A; (Alon) A–2 and A2–A; 

and (Mooney) M10 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to Univair Aircraft 

Corporation Models (ERCO) 415–C, 

415–CD, 415–D, E, G; (Forney) F–1 and 

F–1A; (Alon) A–2 and A2–A; and 

(Mooney) M10 Airplanes. The existing 

AD currently requires an inspection of 

the aileron balance assembly and 

ailerons for cracks and excessive 

looseness of associated parts with the 

required repair or replacement of 

defective parts as necessary. Since we 

issued that AD, we received a report of 

a Univair Aircraft Corporation Model 

ERCO 415–D Ercoupe that crashed after 

an in-flight breakup due to possible 

aileron flutter. This proposed AD would 

add airplanes to the Applicability 

section and require inspections of the 

ailerons, inspections of the aileron 

balance assembly and aileron rigging for 

looseness or wear with a required repair 

or replacement of parts as necessary, 

and a reporting of the inspection results. 

We are issuing this proposed AD to 

prevent failure of the aileron assembly 

and associated parts, which could result 

in loss of control. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 31, 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: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Univair Aircraft 

Corporation, 2500 Himalaya Road, 

Aurora, Colorado 80011; telephone: 

303–375–8882, fax: 303 375–8888; 

Internet: http://univairparts.com. 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 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Denver Aircraft Certification 

Office, 26805 East 68th Ave., Room 214, 

Denver, Colorado 80249–6361; 

telephone: (303) 342–1086; fax: (303) 

342–1088; e-mail: 

roger.caldwell@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–2011–0360; Directorate Identifier 

2010–CE–061–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 

We issued AD 52–02–02 (21 FR 9447, 

December 4, 1956) for Ercoupe Model 

415 Series and Models E and G 

Airplanes. That AD requires an initial 

and repetitive inspection of the aileron 

balance assembly, including the aileron 

hinges, screws and control system, the 

ailerons for cracks in support structure 

and skin, and the repair or replacement 

of damaged parts. That AD resulted 

from several Ercoupe accidents. We 

issued that AD as a precautionary 

measure. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 52–02–02, we 

received a report of a Univair Aircraft 

Corporation Model ERCO 415–D 

Ercoupe that crashed after an in-flight 

breakup. Witnesses of the accident 

noted that while the airplane was 

banking both ailerons were ‘‘fluttering’’ 

at a high frequency, and as the bank 

angle of the airplane increased to almost 

90 degrees, the left wing of the airplane 

‘‘folded back’’ and separated from the 

fuselage. We have received nine other 

documented cases of structural failures 

of the wing and associated components 

of the airframe. 

There are several Univair airplane 

models that have similar type design to 

that of above-referenced incidents, are 

not part of the compliance of AD 52–02– 

02, and should be subjected to the 

requirements of AD 52–02–02. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Ercoupe Service 

Memorandum Nos. 35, 56, and 57 (all 

not dated). The Ercoupe Service 

Memorandum No. 35 describes 

procedures for use in rigging or making 

adjustments to the rigging. The Ercoupe 

Service Memorandum No. 56 describes 

procedures for the inspection of control 

surfaces for cracks and excessive play 

and checking controls for excessive 

movement. The Ercoupe Service 

Memorandum No. 57 describes 

procedures for aileron balance weight 

inspection and removal. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would add 

airplanes to the Applicability section of 

AD 52–02–02 and require inspections of 

the ailerons, add airplanes to the 

Applicability section, add repetitive 

inspections of the aileron bell crank and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20895 

the ailerons for looseness or wear with 

a repair or replacement of parts as 

necessary, and add the requirement to 

report the inspection results. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 2,600 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with the proposed AD: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

Total cost on 

U.S. operators 

Estimated Retained Costs 

4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 ................................................... Not applicable ............................... $340 $884,000 

Estimated New Costs 

.5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 ................................................. Not applicable ............................... 42.50 110,500 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements for the 

flight control system that would be 

required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of airplanes 

that may need this replacement: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ....................................... Aileron Hinge Part Number (P/N) 415–24003 $25 $195 

2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ....................................... Elevator Hinge P/N 415–22007 $40 ........................................ 210 

2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ....................................... Elevator Hinge P/N 415–22008 $83 ........................................ 253 

2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ....................................... Rudder Hinge P/N 415–24003 $25 ......................................... 195 

2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ....................................... Aileron Rod-End Bearing P/N GMM–3M–670 $20 .................. 190 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(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. 

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 

The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing 

airworthiness directive (AD) 52–02–02, 

(21 FR 9447, December 4, 1956), and 

adding the following new AD: 

Univair Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0360; Directorate Identifier 

2010–CE–061–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this proposed AD action by May 31, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 52–02–02 (21 

FR 9447, December 4, 1956). 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Univair Aircraft 

Corporation Models (ERCO) 415–C, 415–CD, 

415–D, E, G; (Forney) F–1 and F–1A; (Alon) 

A–2 and A2–A; and (Mooney) M10 airplanes, 

all serial numbers, that are certificated in any 

category. 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27, Flight Controls. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by a Univair 

Aircraft Corporation Model ERCO 415–D 

Ercoupe that crashed after an in-flight 

breakup due to possible aileron flutter. We 

are issuing this AD to add airplanes to the 

Applicability section and require inspections 

of the ailerons, inspections of the aileron 

balance assembly and aileron rigging for 

looseness or wear with a required repair or 

replacement of parts as necessary, and a 

reporting of the inspection results. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20896 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(1) For all airplanes: Inspect the ailerons for 

cracks in the support structure and skin. 

(i) Within the next 25 hours time-in-service 

(TIS) after the effective date of this AD or 

within 3 months after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitively 

thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 

100 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandums No. 

56 and 57 (both not dated). 

(ii) We will allow ‘‘unless already done’’ credit 

for inspections done within the last 25 

hours TIS before the effective date of this 

AD or within the last 3 months before the 

effective date of this AD, and you may use 

the results from that inspection for the reporting requirement in paragraph (f)(10) of 

this AD. 

(2) For airplanes with the aileron balance assembly (ERCO Part Number (P/N) 415– 

16009) installed: Inspect the assembly for 

cracks in the support structure and skin. 

(i) Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 3 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 100 hours 

TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandums No. 

56 and 57 (both not dated). 

(ii) We will allow ‘‘unless already done’’ credit 

for inspections done within the last 25 

hours TIS before the effective date of this 

AD or within the last 3 months before the 

effective date of this AD, and you may use 

the results from that inspection for the reporting requirement in paragraph (f)(10) of 

this AD. 

(3) If any cracking is found during the inspections required in paragraphs (f)(1) and/or 

(f)(2) of this AD, repair or replace cracked 

parts. 

Before further flight after the inspection where 

the cracking was found. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandums No. 

56 and 57 (both not dated). 

(4) For airplanes with the aileron balance assembly (ERCO P/N 415–16009) installed: Inspect the four No. 6–32 screws that attach 

the balance weight support to the aileron for 

looseness and damage. 

(i) Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 3 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 100 hours 

TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandums No. 

56 and 57 (both not dated). 

(ii) We will allow ‘‘unless already done’’ credit 

for inspections done within the last 25 

hours TIS before the effective date of this 

AD or within the last 3 months before the 

effective date of this AD, and you may use 

the results from that inspection for the reporting requirement in paragraph (f)(10) of 

this AD. 

(5) If any looseness or damage is found during 

the inspection of the screws required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, replace the screws 

with AN 526–632 screws, making sure to not 

overstress during tightening. 

Before further flight after the inspection where 

the looseness or damage was found. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandums No. 

56 and 57 (both not dated). 

(6) For airplanes with the aileron balance assembly (ERCO P/N 415–16009) installed: Inspect the aileron hinges and aileron control 

system for excessive looseness or wear in 

hinge pins or bearings. If, with one aileron 

blocked in the neutral position, the total play 

of the other aileron, measured at the trailing 

edge, exceeds 7⁄16 inch, inspect all the joints 

and bearings and tighten or replace those 

which are loose. 

(i) Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 3 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 100 hours 

TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first. 

(ii) We will allow ‘‘unless already done’’ credit 

for inspections done within the last 25 

hours TIS after the effective date of this AD 

or within the last 3 months before the effective date of this AD, and you may use the 

results from that inspection for the reporting 

requirement in paragraph (f)(10) of this AD. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandums No. 

56 and 57 (both not dated). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20897 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(7) For airplanes that have never had the aileron balance assembly (ERCO P/N 415– 

16009) installed or from which it has been removed following Ercoupe Service Memorandum No. 57: Inspect the aileron hinges 

and aileron control system for excessive 

looseness or wear in hinge pins or bearings. 

If, with one aileron blocked in the neutral position the total play of the other aileron, 

measured at the trailing edge, exceeds 5⁄16

inch, inspect all the joints and bearings and 

tighten those which are loose. 

Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 3 months after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandums No. 

56 and 57 (both not dated). 

(8) For all airplanes: Determine that the air 

speed instrument is correctly calibrated and 

distinctly marked in accordance with the operating limitations. 

Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 3 months after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. 

Follow FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 23–8B, 

Appendix 9, Airspeed Calibrations, dated 

August 14, 2003, or any other FAA-approved airspeed calibration method. AC 23– 

8B can be found at http://rgl.faa.gov/. 

(9) For all airplanes: Remove load from nose 

wheel and adjust rigging. 

Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 3 months after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitively thereafter inspect at 

intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 12 

months, whichever occurs first. 

Follow Ercoupe Service Memorandum No. 35 

(not dated). 

(10) For all airplanes: Report the results from 

the inspections and/or actions required in 

paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4), (f)(6), (f)(7), 

(f)(8), and (f)(9) of this AD. 

Within 3 days after the initial inspections and/ 

or actions required in paragraphs (f)(1), 

(f)(2), (f)(4), (f)(6), (f)(7), (f)(8), and (f)(9) of 

this AD or within 3 days after the next repetitive inspection and/or action required in 

paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4), (f)(6), and 

(f)(9), whichever occurs first. 

Use the reporting form found in figure 1 and 

send the report to the following offices: 

(i) Roger A. Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, ANM–100D, Denver Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, Colorado 80249– 

6361; and 

(ii) Univair Aircraft Corporation, 2500 Himalaya Road, Aurora, Colorado 80011. 

DOCKET NO. FAA–2011–0360 INSPECTION REPORT

Airplane model and year of manufacture 

Airplane serial number 

Airplane registration 

Airplane tachometer hours at time of inspection 

Airspeed calibrated and marked per paragraph (f)(8) of this AD? YES, but no calibration adjustment required. YES, and calibration was adjusted. 

For Ercoupe Service Memorandum No. 56 

Did aileron system play exceed 7⁄16 of an inch? NO YES, and was adjusted. 

Was rudder looseness greater than 1⁄4 of an inch at the trailing 

edge? 

NO YES, and was adjusted. 

Was there elevator motion greater than 3⁄8 of an inch? NO YES, and was adjusted. 

Were any other discrepancies noticed during this inspection, to include cracks or loose hinges? 

For Ercoupe Service Memorandum No. 57 

Does the airplane have aileron balance weights? NO YES 

If balance weights are installed, were the attachments secure? NO YES Not applicable. 

Did you remove the balance weights if allowed? NO YES Not applicable. 

If you did not remove balance weights, did you perform Ercoupe 

Service Memorandum No. 20 (Ailerons-Reinforcement of) 

NO YES Not applicable. 

If balance weights were removed, was the aileron free play 5⁄16 of 

an inch or less? 

NO YES Not applicable. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

20898 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Were any other discrepancies noticed during this inspection? 

For Ercoupe Service Memorandum No. 35 

Did you perform steps 1, 2, and 7 of the Ercoupe Service Memorandum No. 35? NO YES 

Were any other discrepancies noticed during this inspection? 

Send report to: Roger A. Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ANM–100D, Denver ACO, 

26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, Colorado 80249–6361; 

fax: (303) 342–1088; E-mail: roger.caldwell@faa.gov; and 

Univair Aircraft Corporation, 2500 Himalaya Road, Aurora, Colorado 80011 

Figure 1 

Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement 

(g) 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. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Denver 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 the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your Principal Maintenance Inspector 

or Principal Avionics Inspector, as 

appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, 

your local Flight Standards District Office. 

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 52–02–02 are 

approved as AMOCs for this AD. 

Related Information 

(i) For more information about this AD, 

contact Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Denver ACO, 26805 East 68th Ave., 

Room 214, Denver, Colorado 80249–6361; 

telephone: (303) 342–1086; fax: (303) 342– 

1088; e-mail: roger.caldwell@faa.gov. 

(j) For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Univair Aircraft Corporation, 

2500 Himalaya Road, Aurora, Colorado 

80011; telephone: (303) 375–8882, facsimile: 

(303) 375–8888; Internet: http:// 

univairparts.com. You may review copies of 

the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust 

St., Kansas City, MO 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 

7, 2011. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9091 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1167] 

Proposed Airworthiness Directive 

Legal Interpretation 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed airworthiness 

directive interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration is considering issuing a 

legal interpretation on various 

provisions in the regulations applicable 

to airworthiness directives. Comments 

from the public are requested to assist 

the agency in developing the final legal 

interpretation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–1167 using any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

King, Staff Attorney, Regulations 

Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202– 

267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Request 

The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) Organization/ 

Procedures Working Group (WG) of the 

Airworthiness Directive Implementation 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD 

ARC) requested that the FAA provide a 

legal interpretation of several provisions 

in 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

that would help resolve a number of 

issues that have been debated within the 

WG. These issues partly result from 

certain changes made in the plain 

language revision to CFR part 39 in 2002 

(see 67 FR 48003, July 22, 2002). 

Question 1—Continuing Obligation 

Some members of the WG question 

the extent of an aircraft operator’s 

continuing obligation to maintain an 

AD-mandated configuration. They ask 

about two regulations: 

Section 39.7 What is the legal effect of 

failing to comply with an airworthiness 

directive? 

Anyone who operates a product that does 

not meet the requirements of an applicable 

airworthiness directive is in violation of this 

section. 

Section 39.9 What if I operate an aircraft 

or use a product that does not meet the 

requirements of an airworthiness directive? 

If the requirements of an airworthiness 

directive have not been met, you violate 

§ 39.7 each time you operate the aircraft or 

use the product. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS