40778 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 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: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2009–0713; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–303–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

September 14, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A318 series airplanes; certificated in any 

category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27: Flight Controls. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

‘‘Some operators have reported airframe 

vibration under specific flight conditions 

including gusts. 

‘‘Investigations have revealed that under 

such conditions, vibrations may occur when 

the hinge moment of the elevator is close to 

zero, associated to elevator free-play.’’ 

* * * * * 

The unsafe condition is excessive vibration 

of the elevators, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity and reduced 

controllability of the airplane. The corrective 

action includes inspecting the elevators for 

excessive freeplay, and repairing the elevator 

or servo controls, if necessary. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, 

inspect the elevators for excessive freeplay, 

using a load application tool and a spring 

scale assembly, in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated 

agent). Repeat the inspection at intervals not 

to exceed 20 months. 

Note 1: Guidance on the inspection 

procedures can be found in Task 27–34–00– 

200–001 of the A318/A319/A320/A321 

Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). 

(i) Within 20 months since the date of 

issuance of the original French, German, or 

EASA airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original French, German, or 

EASA export certificate of airworthiness, or 

within 3 months after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(ii) Within 20 months since the last 

inspection of the elevators for excessive 

freeplay performed in accordance with Task 

27–34–00–200–001 of the Airbus A320 

Airplane Maintenance Manual. 

(2) If any inspection required by paragraph 

(f)(1) of this AD indicates that the freeplay in 

the elevator exceeds 7 millimeters, before 

further flight, repair the elevator or servo 

controls in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA; or the EASA (or its 

delegated agent). 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: 

(1) The EASA AD applies to Airbus Model 

A318, A319, A320, and A321 series 

airplanes, but the FAA AD applies only to 

Airbus Model A318 series airplanes. The 

actions required by the EASA AD for Airbus 

Model A319, A320, and A321 series 

airplanes are addressed in FAA AD 2001–16– 

09, amendment 39–12377, and FAA AD 

2005–22–10 R1, amendment 39–14354. 

(2) This FAA AD does not require 

modification of the elevator neutral setting as 

specified in paragraph 2. of the EASA AD 

because this modification is already part of 

the FAA-approved type design for Airbus 

Model A318 series airplanes. 

(3) This FAA AD does not require a 

detailed inspection to determine the position 

of each tail cone triangle as specified in 

paragraph 3. of the EASA AD because that 

action was already accomplished on all 

Airbus Model A318 series airplanes during 

production. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, 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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace 

Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2141; fax 

(425) 227–1149. Before using any approved 

AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 

applies, notify your principal maintenance 

inspector (PMI) or principal avionics 

inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a 

principal inspector, your local Flight 

Standards District Office. 

(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, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2007–0163, dated June 11, 2007, for 

related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

3, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19419 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0712; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–152–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier 

Model DHC–8–100 and DHC–8–200 

Series Airplanes, and Model DHC–8– 

301, –311, and –315 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT) 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Bombardier Model DHC–8–100 

and DHC–8–200 series airplanes, and 

DHC–8–301, –311, and –315 airplanes. 

This proposed AD would require 

implementing a corrosion prevention 

and control program (CPCP) either by 

accomplishing specific tasks or by 

revising the maintenance inspection 

program to include a CPCP. This 

proposed AD results from the 

determination that, as airplanes age, 

they are more likely to exhibit 

indications of corrosion. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent structural 

failure of the airplane due to corrosion. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 14, 

2009. 

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. 


sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40779 

• 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 Bombardier, 

Inc., 400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

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: 

Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– 

7324; fax (516) 794–5531. 

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–2009–0712; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–152–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 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the airworthiness 

authority for Canada, notified us that an 

unsafe condition may exist on certain 

Bombardier Model DHC–8–100 and 

DHC–8–200 series airplanes, and Model 

DHC–8–301, –311, and –315 airplanes. 

TCCA advises that, as airplanes age, 

they are more likely to exhibit 

indications of corrosion. Operators must 

implement a Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Program (CPCP) that identifies 

specific areas to be inspected to 

minimize and control deterioration of 

the airplane from corrosion. This 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in structural failure of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier has issued Part 1, Section 

3, Structural Inspection Program, of the 

following de Havilland Dash 8 

Maintenance Program MRB 

(Maintenance Review Board) Reports. In 

this proposed AD, we refer to these 

publications as the ‘‘manual.’’ 

• Program Support Manual (PSM) 

1–8–7, Revision 22, dated November 1, 

2008, for Bombardier Model DHC–8– 

100 series airplanes. 

• PSM 1–82–7, Revision 13, dated 

November 1, 2008, for Bombardier 

Model DHC–8–200 series airplanes. 

• PSM 1–83–7, Revision 22, dated 

November 1, 2008, for Bombardier 

Model DHC–8–300 series airplanes. 

The manual provides a basic 

structural inspection schedule, which is 

intended to ensure continuous 

airworthiness. Only primary structures 

defined as Structurally Significant Items 

(SSIs) and secondary structures whose 

failure may adversely affect the systems’ 

functions are included in the manual. 

Canadian airworthiness requirements 

state that the aircraft maintenance 

program must identify specific 

inspections under the CPCP. For the 

affected airplanes, the CPCP includes a 

complete re-analysis of the structural 

inspection program, supported by inservice engineering findings. New and 

revised tasks identified as CPCP are 

annotated in the manual as ED/CPCP. 

ED stands for ‘‘environmental damage.’’ 

TCCA mandated the service 

information and issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2007–06, 

dated April 10, 2007, to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes in Canada. 

Levels of Corrosion 

The Canadian Airworthiness Directive 

refers to levels of corrosion. For the 

purposes of this proposed AD, the levels 

are defined in Part 1 of the Bombardier 

(de Havilland) DHC–6 Twin Otter, Dash 

7 & Dash 8 Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Manual PSM 1–GEN–5, 

Revision 3, dated November 30, 1998, as 

follows: 

• Level 1 corrosion: 

1. Occurs between repetitive 

inspections, is local, and can be 

reworked within certain limits; or 

2. Is local but exceeds allowable 

limits and is attributed to an event not 

typical of the usage of the other 

airplanes in the operator’s fleet; or 

3. Exceeds allowable limits but for 

which only light corrosion has been 

found in previous inspections. 

• Level 2 corrosion: 

1. Occurs between repetitive 

inspections and exceeds allowable 

limits, necessitating a repair or complete 

replacement of a structural significant 

element; or 

2. Occurs between repetitive 

inspections, is widespread, and requires 

a rework approaching allowable limits. 

• Level 3 corrosion is found during 

initial or repetitive inspections and is 

determined to be a potentially urgent 

unsafe condition necessitating 

expeditious action. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

These airplanes are manufactured in 

Canada 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. Pursuant to 

this bilateral airworthiness agreement, 

TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the 

situation described above. We have 

examined TCCA’s findings, evaluated 

all pertinent information, and 

determined that we need to issue an AD 

for airplanes of this type design that are 

certificated for operation in the United 

States. 

Therefore, we are proposing this AD, 

which would require implementing a 

CPCP either by accomplishing specific 

tasks or by revising the maintenance 

inspection program to include a CPCP. 

The proposed AD would require you to 

use the manual described previously to 

perform these actions. The proposed AD 

also would require you to report 

findings of Level 3 corrosion to the 

airplane manufacturer and to the FAA. 


sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
40780 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

154 airplanes of U.S. registry. There are 

between 16 and 17 specific inspections, 

depending on the applicable manual 

identified in Table 1 of this AD. The 

proposed inspections would take about 

53 work hours per airplane, per 

inspection cycle, at an average labor rate 

of $80 per work hour. Based on these 

figures, the estimated cost of the 

proposed AD for U.S. operators is 

$652,960, or $4,240 per airplane, per 

inspection cycle. 

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); 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. See the ADDRESSES section 

for a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, 

Inc.): Docket No. FAA–2009–0712; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–152–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by September 14, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model 

DHC–8–101, DHC–8–102, DHC–8–103, DHC– 

8–106, DHC–8–201, DHC–8–202, DHC–8– 

301, DHC–8–311, and DHC–8–315 airplanes, 

certificated in any category; serial numbers 

003 and subsequent. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Codes 32: Landing Gear, 51: 

Standard Practices/Structures; 52: Doors; 53: 

Fuselage; 54: Nacelles/Pylons; 55: Stabilizers; 

and 57: Wings. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from the determination 

that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to 

exhibit indications of corrosion. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent structural failure 

of the airplane due to corrosion. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Manual References 

(g) This AD refers to the manuals listed in 

Table 1 of this AD. 

TABLE 1—APPLICABLE MANUALS

Bombardier model Manual 

(1) DHC–8–101, –102, –103, and –106 airplanes.Part 1, Section 3, Structural Inspection Program, of the Dash 8 Maintenance Program MRB 

(Maintenance Review Board) Report Program Support Manual (PSM) 1–8–7, Revision 22, 

dated November 1, 2008. 

(2) DHC–8–201 and DHC–8–202 airplanes ....... Part 1, Section 3, Structural Inspection Program, of the Dash 8 Maintenance Program MRB 

Report PSM 1–82–7, Revision 13, dated November 1, 2008. 

(3) Model DHC–8–301, DHC–8–311, and DHC– 

8–315 airplanes.

Part 1, Section 3, Structural Inspection Program, of the Dash 8 Maintenance Program MRB 

Report PSM 1–83–7, Revision 22, dated November 1, 2008. 

Inspections 

(h) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do 

each of the Environmental Damage/Corrosion 

Protection and Control Program (ED/CPCP) 

inspections, including re-protection tasks, as 

applicable, in accordance with the applicable 

manual identified in Table 1 of this AD. 

Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this 

AD, repeat each task thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed the compliance time specified 

in the ‘‘Repeat’’ column of the applicable 

manual identified in Table 1 of this AD. 

(1) Within 24 months after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(2) At the compliance time specified in the 

‘‘Threshold’’ column of the applicable 

manual identified in Table 1 of this AD since 

the date of issuance of the original Canadian 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original Canadian export 

certificate of airworthiness. If there is no 

value in the ‘‘Threshold’’ column, use the 

time specified in the ‘‘Repeat’’ column. 

(i) After accomplishment of each initial 

ED/CPCP task required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD, the FAA may approve the 

incorporation into the operator’s approved 

maintenance/inspection program of the CPCP 

specified in the applicable manual identified 

in Table 1 of this AD; or the equivalent 

program that is approved in accordance with 

this AD. In all cases, the initial corrosion task 

for each airplane area must be completed by 

the initial compliance time specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(1) Any operator complying with paragraph 

(i) of this AD may use an alternative 

recordkeeping method to that otherwise 


sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40781 

required by section 91.417 (‘‘Maintenance 

records’’) or section 121.380 (‘‘Maintenance 

recording requirements’’) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.417 or 14 

CFR 121.380, respectively) for the actions 

required by this AD, provided that the 

recordkeeping method is approved by the 

FAA and is included in a revision to the 

maintenance/inspection program. For the 

purposes of this paragraph, ‘‘the FAA’’ is 

defined as the cognizant Principal 

Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for operators 

that are assigned a PMI (i.e., part 121, 125, 

and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight 

Standards District Office for other operators 

(i.e., part 91 operators). 

(2) After the initial accomplishment of the 

ED/CPCP tasks required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD, any extension of the repetitive 

intervals specified in the manual must be 

approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA. 

Corrective Actions 

(j) If any corrosion is found during 

accomplishment of any action required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further 

flight, rework, repair, or replace, as 

applicable, in accordance with a method 

approved by either the Manager, New York 

ACO, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil 

Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated agent). 

Reporting Requirements for Level 3 

Corrosion Findings 

(k) If any Level 3 corrosion, as defined in 

Part 1 of the Bombardier (de Havilland) 

DHC–6 Twin Otter, Dash 7 & Dash 8 

Corrosion Prevention and Control Manual 

PSM 1–GEN–5, Revision 3, dated November 

30, 1998, is found during the 

accomplishment of any action required by 

this AD, do paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and 

(k)(3) of this AD. Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

(1) Within 3 days after the finding of Level 

3 corrosion, report findings to the Manager, 

New York ACO, FAA, in accordance with the 

Bombardier (de Havilland) DHC–6 Twin 

Otter, Dash 7 & Dash 8 Corrosion Prevention 

and Control Manual PSM 1–GEN–5, Revision 

3, dated November 30, 1998. 

(2) Within 10 days after the finding of 

Level 3 corrosion, either submit a plan to the 

FAA to identify a schedule for accomplishing 

the applicable CPCP task on the remainder of 

the airplanes in the operator’s fleet that are 

subject to this AD, or provide data 

substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion that 

was found is an isolated case. The FAA may 

impose a schedule other than that proposed 

in the plan upon finding that a change to the 

schedule is needed to ensure that any other 

Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely 

manner. For the purposes of this paragraph, 

‘‘the FAA’’ is defined as the cognizant 

Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for 

operators that are assigned a PMI (i.e., part 

121, 125, and 135 operators), and the 

cognizant Flight Standards District Office for 

other operators (i.e., part 91 operators). 

(3) Within the time schedule approved in 

accordance with paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, 

accomplish the applicable task on the 

remainder of the airplanes in the operator’s 

fleet that are subject to this AD. 

Limiting Future Corrosion Findings 

(l) If corrosion findings that exceed Level 

1 are found in any area during any repeat of 

any CPCP task after the initial 

accomplishment required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD: Within 60 days after such finding, 

implement a means approved by the FAA to 

reduce future findings of corrosion in that 

area to Level 1 or better. For the purposes of 

this paragraph, ‘‘the FAA’’ is defined as the 

cognizant PMI for operators that are assigned 

a PMI (i.e., part 121, 125, and 135 operators), 

and the cognizant Flight Standards District 

Office for other operators (i.e., part 91 

operators). 

Scheduling Corrosion Tasks for Transferred 

Airplanes 

(m) Before any airplane subject to this AD 

is transferred and placed into service by an 

operator: Establish a schedule for 

accomplishing the CPCP tasks required by 

this AD in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) 

or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

(1) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks 

required by this AD have been accomplished 

previously at the schedule established by this 

AD: Perform the first CPCP task in each area 

in accordance with the previous operator’s 

schedule, or in accordance with the new 

operator’s schedule, whichever results in an 

earlier accomplishment of that CPCP task. 

After the initial accomplishment of each 

CPCP task in each area as required by this 

paragraph, repeat each CPCP task in 

accordance with the new operator’s schedule. 

(2) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks 

required by this AD have not been 

accomplished previously, or have not been 

accomplished at the schedule established by 

this AD: The new operator must perform 

each initial CPCP task in each area before 

further flight or in accordance with a 

schedule approved by the FAA. For the 

purposes of this paragraph, ‘‘the FAA’’ is 

defined as the cognizant Principal 

Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for operators 

that are assigned a PMI (i.e., part 121, 125, 

and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight 

Standards District Office for other operators 

(i.e., part 91 operators). 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(n)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, 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: 

Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, 

FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7324; 

fax (516) 794–5531. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Related Information 

(o) Canadian airworthiness directive CF– 

2007–06, dated April 10, 2007, also addresses 

the subject of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

3, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19420 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0745; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–036–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; American 

Champion Aircraft Corp. Models 7ECA, 

7GCAA, 7GCBC, 7KCAB, 8KCAB, and 

8GCBC 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 all 

American Champion Aircraft Corp. 

Models 7ECA, 7GCAA, 7GCBC, 7KCAB, 

8KCAB, and 8GCBC airplanes, 

manufactured prior to 1989 and 

equipped with folding rear seat backs. 

This proposed AD would require 

inspection of the rear seat back hinge 

areas for cracking and excessive 

elongation of the rear seat hinge bolt 

hole and, if cracking or excessive 

elongation is found, replacement of the 

rear seat frame. This proposed AD 

results from an occurrence of the rear 

seat hinge area failing in flight. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

cracking of the rear seat back hinge area 

and excessive elongation of the rear seat 

hinge bolt hole, either of which could 

result in failure of the seat back. This 

failure could lead to a rear-seated pilot 

or passenger inadvertently interfering 

with the control stick while attempting 

to not roll to the rear of the airplane 

upon seat back failure. Consequently, 

this failure could result in loss of 

control. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 28, 

2009. 


sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS