[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5477-5479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2484]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 5477]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2003-CE-60-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Glasflugel--Ing. E. Hanle Model 
GLASFLUGEL Kestrel Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) 
for all Glasflugel--Ing. E. Hanle (Glasflugel) Model GLASFLUGEL Kestrel 
sailplanes. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the airbrake 
actuating shaft for deformation and cracks (hereon referred to as 
damage). If any damage is found, this proposed AD would also require 
you to repair or replace the airbrake actuation shaft. This proposed AD 
is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 
issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this 
proposed AD to detect and correct damage to the airbrake actuation 
shaft, which could result in failure of the airbrake control. This 
failure could lead to loss of control of the sailplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by March 4, 
2004.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed 
AD:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> By mail: FAA, Central Region, Office of the 
Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-CE-60-AD, 901 
Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> By fax: (816) 329-3771.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> By e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b52462a282e465c462f0408000e1f2b0d0a0a450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="41786c0002046c766c052e222a2435012720206f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments sent 
electronically must contain ``Docket No. 2003-CE-60-AD'' in the subject 
line. If you send comments electronically as attached electronic files, 
the files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD 
from Hansjorg Streifeneder, Glasfaser-Flugzeug-Service GmbH, Hofener 
Weg, D-72582, Grabenstetten, Germany; telephone: 07382 1032; facsimile: 
07382 1629; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc8f888e99959a9085bc9d9390d29f9391"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4c7c0c6d1ddd2d8cdf4d5dbd89ad7dbd9">[email protected]</span></a>.
    You may view the AD docket at FAA, Central Region, Office of the 
Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-CE-60-AD, 901 
Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Office hours are 8 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any 
written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. 
Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``AD 
Docket No. 2003-CE-60-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. If you 
want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-
addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it. We 
will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you.
    Are there any specific portions of this proposed AD I should pay 
attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall 
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this 
proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and 
that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will 
summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will 
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 
proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts.

Discussion

    What events have caused this proposed AD? The Lutfahrt-Bundesamt 
(LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently 
notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Glasflugel Model 
GLASFLUGEL Kestrel sailplanes. The LBA reports that, on one of the 
affected sailplanes, the airbrakes would not completely open or close.
    A visual inspection of that sailplane revealed cracks and deformity 
(damage) on the airbrake actuating shaft. Incorrect locking forces of 
the airbrake control caused the damage.
    What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? If not 
detected and corrected, damage to the airbrake actuating shaft could 
result in failure of airbrake control. This failure could lead to loss 
of control of the sailplane.
    Is there service information that applies to this subject? H. 
Streifeneder has issued Technical Note TN 401-26, dated November 22, 
2001.
    What are the provisions of this service information? The service 
bulletin includes procedures for:

--Inspecting the airbrake actuation shaft for damage; and
--Repairing or replacing any damaged airbrake actuation shaft.

    What action did the LBA take? The LBA classified this technical 
note as mandatory and issued German AD Number 2002-051, dated March 7, 
2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these sailplanes in 
Germany.
    Did the LBA inform the United States under the bilateral 
airworthiness agreement? These Glasflugel Model GLASFLUGEL Kestrel 
sailplanes are manufactured in Germany and are type-certificated for 
operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable 
bilateral airworthiness agreement.
    Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us 
informed of the situation described above.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    What has FAA decided? We have examined the LBA's findings, reviewed 
all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary 
for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in 
the United States.
    Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist 
or develop on other Glasflugel Model GLASFLUGEL Kestrel sailplanes of 
the

[[Page 5478]]

same type design that are registered in the United States, we are 
proposing AD action to detect and correct damage to the airbrake 
actuating shaft, which could result in failure of airbrake control. 
This failure could lead to loss of control of the sailplane.
    What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require 
you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service 
bulletin.
    How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this proposed AD? On 
July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 
47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation 
now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight 
permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material 
previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is 
included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD 
actions.

Costs of Compliance

    How many sailplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that 
this proposed AD affects 16 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.
    What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/
operators of the affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs 
to accomplish this proposed inspection:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total cost
            Labor cost                      Parts cost             per         Total cost on U.S.  operators
                                                                airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 workhour x $65 per hour = $65...  Not applicable...........        $65   $65 x 16 = $1,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary repairs 
or replacements that would be required based on the results of this 
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of 
sailplanes that may need this repair or replacement:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Labor cost                    Parts cost                Total cost per airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 workhours x $65 per hour = $325..............        $40   $325 + $40 = $365.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Findings

    Would this proposed AD impact various entities? 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.
    Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory 
action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 
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); 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 summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD 
and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by 
sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include 
``AD Docket No. 2003-CE-60-AD'' in your request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration 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.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

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

Glasflugel--Ing. E. Hanle: Docket No. 2003-CE-60-AD

When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD?

    (a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD) by March 4, 2004.

What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action?

    (b) None.

What Sailplanes Are Affected by This AD?

    (c) This AD affects Model GLASFLUGEL Kestrel sailplanes, all 
serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

    (d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness 
information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for 
Germany. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and 
correct damage to the airbrake actuation shaft, which could result 
in failure of the airbrake control. This failure could lead to loss 
of control of the sailplane.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following:

[[Page 5479]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Actions                  Compliance          Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Inspect the airbrake          Within the next 25  Follow H.
 actuation shaft for cracks and    hours time-in-      Streifeneder
 deformation (damage).             service (TIS)       Technical Note TN
                                   after the           401-26, dated
                                   effective date of   November 22,
                                   this AD.            2001.
                                   Repetitively
                                   inspect
                                   thereafter at
                                   intervals not to
                                   exceed 12
                                   calendar months.
(2) Repair or replace any         Before further      Follow H.
 cracked or deformed airbrake      flight after any    Streifeneder
 actuation shaft found during      inspection          Technical Note TN
 any inspection required in        required in         401-26, dated
 paragraph (e)(1) of the AD.       paragraph (e)(1)    November 22,
                                   of this AD in       2001.
                                   which damage is
                                   found. Continue
                                   with repetitive
                                   inspections after
                                   repairs or
                                   replacements are
                                   made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?

    (f) You may request a different method of compliance or a 
different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 
14 CFR 39.13. Send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, 
Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already 
approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Greg Davison, 
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; 
facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD?

    (g) You may get copies of the documents referenced in this AD 
from Hansjorg Streifeneder, Glasfaser-Flugzeug-Service GmbH, Hofener 
Weg, D-72582 Grabenstetten, Germany; telephone: 07382 1032; 
facsimile: 07382 1629; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2a1a6a0b7bbb4beab92b3bdbefcb1bdbf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe8d8a8c9b97989287be9f9192d09d9193">[email protected]</span></a>. You may view these 
documents at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 
901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Is There Other Information That Relates to This Subject?

    (h) Germany AD Number 2002-051, dated March 7, 2002.


    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 26, 2004.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 04-2484 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>