Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70645

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–66–AD; Amendment 39–

11971; AD 2000–23–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company Model 402C

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99–11–13,

which currently requires inspecting

(one-time) the forward, aft, and

auxiliary wing spars for cracks on

certain Cessna Aircraft Company

(Cessna) Model 402C airplanes, and

repairing any cracks found. AD 99–11–

13 also requires reporting the results of

the inspection to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) to provide data to

help us determine whether the

inspection should be repetitive. After reevaluating the fatigue analysis for the

wing spars on the affected airplanes, we

have determined that spar cap cracking

is not an isolated condition and could

continue to develop over the life of the

affected airplanes. This AD retains the

inspection required in AD 99–11–13,

and will make the inspection repetitive.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to detect and correct any

cracks in the forward, aft, and auxiliary

wing spars, which could result in

reduced or loss of control of the

airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

December 21, 2000.

The Director of the Federal Register

previously approved the incorporation

by reference of certain publications

listed in the regulation as of June 21,

1999 (64 FR 29781, June 3, 1999).

ADDRESSES: You may get the service

information referenced in this AD from

the Cessna Aircraft Company, P. O. Box

7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:

(316) 941–7550, facsimile: (316) 942–

9008. You may examine this

information at FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–CE–66–

AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eual

Conditt, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209, telephone: (316) 946–4128;

facsimile: (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What Prior AD Action Did FAA Take on

This Subject?

We issued AD 99–11–13, Amendment

39–11184 (64 FR 29781, June 3, 1999),

in order to detect and correct cracks in

the forward, aft, and auxiliary spars of

Cessna Model 402C airplanes. AD 99–

11–13 currently requires you to

accomplish the following on the

affected airplanes:

—Inspect the forward, aft, and

auxiliary wing spars for cracks in

accordance with Cessna Service Bulletin

MEB99–3, dated May 6, 1999;

—Repair any cracks found in

accordance with an FAA-approved

repair scheme; and

—Report the results of the inspection

to FAA.

AD 99–11–13 was the result of an

accident of one of the affected airplanes

where the right-hand wing failed just

inboard of the nacelle at Wing Station

(WS) 87. Investigation of this accident

revealed fatigue cracking of the forward

main spar that initiated at the edge of

the front spar forward lower spar cap.

What Has Happened To Necessitate

Further AD Action?

The reason for the reporting

requirement of AD 99–11–13 was to

provide data to FAA on the extent of

cracking in the forward, aft, and

auxiliary wing spars on the affected

airplanes. After re-evaluating the fatigue

analysis for the wing spars on the

affected airplanes, we have determined

that spar cap cracking is not an isolated

condition and could continue to

develop over the life of the affected

airplanes.

Has FAA Taken Any Action to This

Point?

We issued a proposal to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that

would apply to certain Cessna Model

402C airplanes. This proposal was

published in the Federal Register as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on June 21, 2000 (65 FR 38448). The

NPRM proposed to supersede AD 99–

11–13, Amendment 39–11184. The

NPRM also proposed to retain the

inspection requirements of AD 99–11–

13, and proposed to make the inspection

repetitive.

What is the Potential Impact if FAA

Took No Action?

These actions are necessary to

continue to detect and correct any

cracks in the forward, aft, and auxiliary

wing spars, which could result in

reduced or loss of control of the

airplane.

Was the Public Invited to Comment?

The FAA encouraged interested

persons to participate in the making of

this amendment. The following presents

the comments received on the proposal

and FAA’s response to each comment:

Comment Disposition

What is the Commenters’ Concerns?

Two commenters request that FAA

change the compliance time of the

proposed AD based on their individual

circumstances. Both commenters utilize

the affected airplanes and accumulate

over 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS)

per year. The commenters display

concern over the safety problems that

could occur with the frequency of

inspections because of mechanic

complacency. The commenters’

recommendations are as follows:

—incorporate an hours TIS or

calendar (whichever occurs later)

compliance time, e.g., 110 hours TIS or

6 months, whichever occurs later; and

—allow the inspections at 360-hour

TIS intervals instead of the proposed

100-hour TIS intervals for operators

with FAA-approved inspection

programs and who do not operate in

accordance with the annual/100-hour

inspection requirements.

What is FAA’s Response to the Concern?

While FAA recognizes mechanic

complacency as a viable concern, results

of damage tolerance analysis and testing

support the 100-hour TIS repetitive

inspection compliance time. Should a

crack initiate through any means

(manufacturing process, fatigue,

corrosion, mechanical damage, etc.), the

100-hour TIS inspection interval

provides at least two inspections

between crack initiation and

development to a critical crack length in

order to detect and correct the

condition.

We will consider individual

extensions to the compliance times as

alternative methods of compliance

provided they:

—Provide a level of safety that is

acceptable to the FAA; and

—Are submitted using the procedures

in the AD.

We are not making any changes to the

final rule as a result of these comments.

70646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The FAA’s Determination

What Is FAA’s Final Determination on

This Issue?

We carefully reviewed all available

information related to the subject

presented above and determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed except

for minor editorial changes. These

changes provide the intent that was

proposed in the NPRM for correcting the

unsafe condition and do not impose any

additional burden than what was

intended in the NPRM.

Is There a Modification I Can

Incorporate Instead of Repetitively

Inspecting the Wing Spars?

The FAA has determined that longterm continued operational safety

would be better assured by design

changes that remove the source of the

problem, rather than by repetitive

inspections or other special procedures.

With this in mind, FAA is working with

Cessna in developing a strap installation

that would have the capability of

carrying airplane ultimate load if the

spar cap was fractured. The intent is

that this strap could be inspected and

that the inspections of this strap would

be incorporated into the operator’s

maintenance program, as a replacement

for the repetitive inspections required

by this AD.

The FAA may consider additional

rulemaking action if this modification is

developed and subsequently FAAapproved.

Cost Impact

How Many Airplanes Does This AD

Impact?

We estimate that this AD affects 225

airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What Is The Cost Impact of This AD on

Owners/Operators of the Affected

Airplanes?

We estimate the following costs to

accomplish the initial inspection:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

Total cost

on U.S.

airplane

operators

3 workhours X $60 per hour = $180 ........ No parts required for the inspection ......... $180 per airplane ...................................... $40,500

What About the Cost of Repetitive

Inspections?

The FAA has no method of

determining the number of repetitive

inspections each owner/operator will

incur over the life of each of the affected

airplanes so the cost impact is based on

the initial inspection.

What Is the Difference Between The Cost

Impact of This AD and The Cost Impact

of AD 99–11–13?

The cost impact of this AD is the same

as is currently required by AD 99–11–

13. The only difference between this AD

and AD 99–11–13 is the repetitive

inspections of each affected airplane

owner/operator. As discussed above,

FAA has no way of determining the

repetitive inspection costs.

Regulatory Impact

Does This AD Impact Various Entities?

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

Does This AD Involve a Significant Rule

or Regulatory Action?

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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. A copy of the final

evaluation prepared for this action is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained by contacting the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorportion by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (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. FAA amends § 39.13 by removing

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99–11–13,

Amendment 39–11184 (64 FR 29781,

June 3, 1999), and by adding a new AD

to read as follows:

2000–23–01 Cessna Aircraft Company:

Amendment 39–11971; Docket No. 99–

CE–66–AD; Supersedes AD 99–11–13,

Amendment 39–11184.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

Any Model 402C airplane, certificated in any

category, that has a serial number that falls

within one of the following ranges:

(1) 689;

(2) 402C0001 through 402C0125;

(3) 402C0201 through 402C0355;

(4) 402C0401 through 402C0528;

(5) 402C0601 through 402C0653; and

(6) 402C0801 through 402C1020.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct any cracks in the

forward, aft, and auxiliary wing spars, which

could result in reduced or loss of control of

the airplane.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70647

Actions Compliance times Procedures

(1) Accomplish both an external and internal inspection of the forward, aft, and auxiliary

wing spars for cracks.

Initially inspect upon accumulating 10,000

hours total time-in-service (TIS) on the airplane or within the next 25 hours TIS after

June 21, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99–

11–13), whichever occurs later. Repetitively

inspect thereafter within 110 hours TIS after

the last inspection required by this AD or

Ad 99–11–13, whichever is applicable, and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110

hours TIS.

Accomplish these inspections in accordance

with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of Cessna Service Bulletin

MEB99–3, dated May 6, 1999.

(2) If any crack is found on any forward, aft, or

auxiliary wing spar during any inspection required by this AD, accomplish the following:

(i) Obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme

from the Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O.

Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: (316) 941–7550, facsimile: (316)

942–9008; and.

(ii) Incorporate this repair scheme .............. Prior to further flight after the inspection

where the crack is found.

Not applicable.

Note 1: The 110-hour TIS interval

repetitive inspection time is established to

allow this action to be accomplished with

regular maintenance. The FAA initially

determined that 100-hour TIS intervals

would provide the safety intent, but has since

determined that the 110-hour TIS intervals

would provide the same safety intent while

providing a 10-percent time flexibility in

scheduling to coincide with regular

maintenance.

Note 2: The compliance times specified in

Cessna Service Bulletin MEB99–3, dated May

6, 1999, are different than those required by

this AD. The times in this AD take

precedence over those in the service bulletin.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? 

(1) You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(i) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(ii) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road,

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita,

Kansas 67209.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance that

were approved in accordance with AD 99–

11–13 are considered approved as alternative

methods of compliance for this AD.

Note 3: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Eual Conditt, Aerospace

Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification

Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209,

telephone: (316) 946–4128; facsimile: (316)

946–4407.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? Actions required

by this AD must be done in accordance with

Cessna Service Bulletin MEB99–3, dated May

6, 1999. The Director of the Federal Register

previously approved this incorporation by

reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51, as of June 21, 1999 (64 FR 29781;

June 3, 1999). You can get copies from the

Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 7706,

Wichita, Kansas 67277. You can look at

copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of

the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.

(i) Does this AD action affect any existing

AD actions? This amendment supersedes AD

99–11–13, Amendment 39–11184.

(j) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on December 21, 2000.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

November 2, 2000.

Michael K. Dahl,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28831 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NE–11–AD; Amendment

39–11912; AD 2000–20–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca

Arriel 1 Series Turboshaft Engines;

Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction

SUMMARY: This document makes a

correction to Airworthiness Directive

(AD) 2000–20–01 applicable to

Turbomeca Arriel 1 series turboshaft

engines that was published in the

Federal Register on October 2, 2000 (65

FR 58640). The listing of helicopters on

which the affected engines might be

installed in the table in the

Applicability section is incorrect. This

document corrects that listing. In all

other respects, the original document

remains the same.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Rosa, Aerospace Engineer, Engine

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–

5299; telephone (781) 238–7152, fax

(781) 238–7199 .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final

rule airworthiness directive (FR Doc 00–

24900) applicable to Turbomeca Arriel 1

series turboshaft engines, was published

in the Federal Register on October 2,

2000 (65 FR 58640). The following

correction is needed: