Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62005 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0622; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–034–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus 

Aircraft Ltd. Models PC–6, PC–6–H1, 

PC–6–H2, PC–6/350, PC–6/350–H1, PC– 

6/350–H2, PC–6/A, PC–6/A–H1, PC–6/ 

A–H2, PC–6/B–H2, PC–6/B1–H2, PC–6/ 

B2–H2, PC–6/B2–H4, PC–6/C–H2, and 

PC–6/C1–H2 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 that would revise 

an existing AD. 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: 

Findings of corrosion, wear and cracks in 

the upper wing strut fittings on some PC–6 

aircraft have been reported in the past. It is 

possible that the spherical bearing of the 

wing strut fittings installed in the underwing 

can be loose in the fitting or cannot rotate 

because of corrosion. In this condition, the 

joint cannot function as designed and fatigue 

cracks may then develop. Undetected cracks, 

wear and/or corrosion in this area could 

cause failure of the upper attachment fitting, 

leading to failure of the wing structure and 

subsequent loss of control of the aircraft. 

To address this problem, FOCA published 

AD TM–L Nr. 80.627–6/Index 72–2 and HB– 

2006–400 and EASA published AD 2007– 

0114 to require specific inspections and to 

obtain a fleet status. Since the issuance of AD 

2007–0114, the reported data proved that it 

was necessary to establish and require 

repetitive inspections. 

EASA published Emergency AD 2007– 

0241–E to extend the applicability and to 

require repetitive eddy current and visual 

inspections of the upper wing strut fitting for 

evidence of cracks, wear and/or corrosion 

and examination of the spherical bearing and 

replacement of cracked fittings. Collected 

data received in response to Emergency AD 

2007–0241–E resulted in the issuance of 

EASA AD 2007–0241R1 that permitted 

extending the intervals for the repetitive 

eddy current and visual inspections from 100 

Flight Hours (FH) to 300 FH and from 150 

Flight Cycles (FC) to 450 FC, respectively. In 

addition, oversize bolts were introduced by 

Pilatus PC–6 Service Bulletin (SB) 57–005 R1 

and the fitting replacement procedure was 

adjusted accordingly. 

Based on fatigue test results, EASA AD 

2007–0241R2 was issued to extend the 

repetitive inspection interval to 1100 FH or 

12 calendar months, whichever occurs first, 

and to delete the related flight cycle intervals 

and the requirement for the ‘‘Mild Corrosion 

Severity Zone’’. In addition, some editorial 

changes have been made for reasons of 

standardization and readability. 

Revision 3 of this AD referred to the latest 

revision of the PC–6 Aircraft Maintenance 

Manual (AMM) Chapter 5 limitations which 

have included the same repetitive inspection 

intervals and procedures already mandated 

in the revision 2 of AD 2007–0241. Besides 

the inspections, in the latest revision of the 

PC–6 AMM, the replacement procedures for 

the fittings were included. 

Additionally, EASA AD 2007–0241R3 

introduced the possibility to replace the wing 

strut fitting with a new designed wing strut 

fitting. With this optional part replacement, 

in the repetitive inspection procedure the 

1100 FH interval is deleted so that only 

calendar defined intervals of inspections 

remained applicable. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 22, 

2010. 

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. 

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: 

Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– 

4059; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

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–2009–0622; Directorate Identifier 

2009–CE–034–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:// 

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 

On August 18, 2009, we issued AD 

2009–18–03, Amendment 39–15999 (74 

FR 43636; August 27, 2009). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

Since we issued AD 2009–18–03, 

Pilatus has updated their maintenance 

programs with new requirements and 

limitations. Another proposed AD 

action, Docket No. FAA–2010–1011, 

will require the incorporation of the 

updated maintenance requirements into 

the airworthiness limitations section of 

the instructions for continued 

airworthiness. Those updated 

maintenance requirements will include 

the repetitive inspections for the wing 

strut fittings and the spherical bearings 

currently included in AD 2009–18–03. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 

2007–0241R4, dated August 31, 2010 

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

correct an unsafe condition for the 

specified products. The MCAI states: 

Findings of corrosion, wear and cracks in 

the upper wing strut fittings on some PC–6 

aircraft have been reported in the past. It is 

possible that the spherical bearing of the 

wing strut fittings installed in the underwing 

can be loose in the fitting or cannot rotate 

because of corrosion. In this condition, the 

joint cannot function as designed and fatigue 

cracks may then develop. Undetected cracks, 

wear and/or corrosion in this area could 

cause failure of the upper attachment fitting, 

leading to failure of the wing structure and 

subsequent loss of control of the aircraft. 

To address this problem, FOCA published 

AD TM–L Nr. 80.627–6/Index 72–2 and HB– 

2006–400 and EASA published AD 2007– 

0114 to require specific inspections and to 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

obtain a fleet status. Since the issuance of AD 

2007–0114, the reported data proved that it 

was necessary to establish and require 

repetitive inspections. 

EASA published Emergency AD 2007– 

0241–E to extend the applicability and to 

require repetitive eddy current and visual 

inspections of the upper wing strut fitting for 

evidence of cracks, wear and/or corrosion 

and examination of the spherical bearing and 

replacement of cracked fittings. Collected 

data received in response to Emergency AD 

2007–0241–E resulted in the issuance of 

EASA AD 2007–0241R1 that permitted 

extending the intervals for the repetitive 

eddy current and visual inspections from 100 

Flight Hours (FH) to 300 FH and from 150 

Flight Cycles (FC) to 450 FC, respectively. In 

addition, oversize bolts were introduced by 

Pilatus PC–6 Service Bulletin (SB) 57–005 R1 

and the fitting replacement procedure was 

adjusted accordingly. 

Based on fatigue test results, EASA AD 

2007–0241R2 was issued to extend the 

repetitive inspection interval to 1100 FH or 

12 calendar months, whichever occurs first, 

and to delete the related flight cycle intervals 

and the requirement for the ‘‘Mild Corrosion 

Severity Zone’’. In addition, some editorial 

changes have been made for reasons of 

standardization and readability. 

Revision 3 of this AD referred to the latest 

revision of the PC–6 Aircraft Maintenance 

Manual (AMM) Chapter 5 limitations which 

have included the same repetitive inspection 

intervals and procedures already mandated 

in the revision 2 of AD 2007–0241. Besides 

the inspections, in the latest revision of the 

PC–6 AMM, the replacement procedures for 

the fittings were included. 

Additionally, EASA AD 2007–0241R3 

introduced the possibility to replace the wing 

strut fitting with a new designed wing strut 

fitting. With this optional part replacement, 

in the repetitive inspection procedure the 

1100 FH interval is deleted so that only 

calendar defined intervals of inspections 

remained applicable. 

The aim of this new revision is to only 

mandate the initial inspection requirement 

and consequently to limit its applicability to 

aeroplanes which are not already in 

compliance with EASA AD 2007–0241R3. 

All aeroplanes which are in compliance with 

EASA AD 2007–0241R3 have to follow the 

repetitive inspection requirements as 

described in Pilatus PC–6 AMM Chapter 04– 

00–00, Document Number 01975, Revision 

12 and the Airworthiness Limitations (ALS) 

Document Number 02334 Revision 1 

mandated by EASA AD 2010–0176. 

Therefore the repetitive inspection 

requirements corresponding paragraphs have 

been deleted in this new EASA AD revision. 

The paragraph numbers of EASA AD 2007– 

0241R numbering has been maintained for 

referencing needs. 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. You 

may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

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 50 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 7 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $29,750, or $595 per 

product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 30 work-hours and require parts 

costing $5,000, for a cost of $7,550 per 

product. We have no way of 

determining the number of products 

that may need these actions. 

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 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 

removing Amendment 39–15999 (74 FR 

43636; August 27, 2009), and adding the 

following new AD: 

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA–2009– 

0622; Directorate Identifier 2009–CE– 

034–AD. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62007 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 22, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD revises AD 2009–18–03, 

Amendment 39–15999. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. 

Models PC–6, PC–6–H1, PC–6–H2, PC–6/350, 

PC–6/350–H1, PC–6/350–H2, PC–6/A, PC–6/ 

A–H1, PC–6/A–H2, PC–6/B–H2, PC–6/B1– 

H2, PC–6/B2–H2, PC–6/B2–H4, PC–6/C–H2, 

and PC–6/C1–H2 airplanes, all manufacturer 

serial number (MSN), and MSN 2001 through 

2092, certificated in any category. These 

airplanes are also identified as Fairchild 

Republic Company PC–6 airplanes, Fairchild 

Industries PC–6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli 

Porter PC–6 airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller 

Corporation PC–6 airplanes. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 57: Wings. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Findings of corrosion, wear and cracks in 

the upper wing strut fittings on some PC–6 

aircraft have been reported in the past. It is 

possible that the spherical bearing of the 

wing strut fittings installed in the underwing 

can be loose in the fitting or cannot rotate 

because of corrosion. In this condition, the 

joint cannot function as designed and fatigue 

cracks may then develop. Undetected cracks, 

wear and/or corrosion in this area could 

cause failure of the upper attachment fitting, 

leading to failure of the wing structure and 

subsequent loss of control of the aircraft. 

To address this problem, FOCA published 

AD TM–L Nr. 80.627–6/Index 72–2 and HB– 

2006–400 and EASA published AD 2007– 

0114 to require specific inspections and to 

obtain a fleet status. Since the issuance of AD 

2007–0114, the reported data proved that it 

was necessary to establish and require 

repetitive inspections. 

EASA published Emergency AD 2007– 

0241–E to extend the applicability and to 

require repetitive eddy current and visual 

inspections of the upper wing strut fitting for 

evidence of cracks, wear and/or corrosion 

and examination of the spherical bearing and 

replacement of cracked fittings. Collected 

data received in response to Emergency AD 

2007–0241–E resulted in the issuance of 

EASA AD 2007–0241R1 that permitted 

extending the intervals for the repetitive 

eddy current and visual inspections from 100 

Flight Hours (FH) to 300 FH and from 150 

Flight Cycles (FC) to 450 FC, respectively. In 

addition, oversize bolts were introduced by 

Pilatus PC–6 Service Bulletin (SB) 57–005 R1 

and the fitting replacement procedure was 

adjusted accordingly. 

Based on fatigue test results, EASA AD 

2007–0241R2 was issued to extend the 

repetitive inspection interval to 1100 FH or 

12 calendar months, whichever occurs first, 

and to delete the related flight cycle intervals 

and the requirement for the ‘‘Mild Corrosion 

Severity Zone’’. In addition, some editorial 

changes have been made for reasons of 

standardization and readability. 

Revision 3 of this AD referred to the latest 

revision of the PC–6 Aircraft Maintenance 

Manual (AMM) Chapter 5 limitations which 

have included the same repetitive inspection 

intervals and procedures already mandated 

in the revision 2 of AD 2007–0241. Besides 

the inspections, in the latest revision of the 

PC–6 AMM, the replacement procedures for 

the fittings were included. 

Additionally, EASA AD 2007–0241R3 

introduced the possibility to replace the wing 

strut fitting with a new designed wing strut 

fitting. With this optional part replacement, 

in the repetitive inspection procedure the 

1100 FH interval is deleted so that only 

calendar defined intervals of inspections 

remained applicable. 

The aim of this new revision is to only 

mandate the initial inspection requirement 

and consequently to limit its applicability to 

aeroplanes which are not already in 

compliance with EASA AD 2007–0241R3. 

All aeroplanes which are in compliance with 

EASA AD 2007–0241R3 have to follow the 

repetitive inspection requirements as 

described in Pilatus PC–6 AMM Chapter 04– 

00–00, Document Number 01975, Revision 

12 and the Airworthiness Limitations (ALS) 

Document Number 02334 Revision 1 

mandated by EASA AD 2010–0176. 

Therefore the repetitive inspection 

requirements corresponding paragraphs have 

been deleted in this new EASA AD revision. 

The paragraph numbers of EASA AD 2007– 

0241R numbering has been maintained for 

referencing needs. 

The proposed AD would require actions that 

are intended to address the unsafe condition 

described in the MCAI. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) For airplanes that have not had both 

wing strut fittings replaced within the last 

100 hours time-in-service (TIS) before 

September 26, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–19–14), or have not been inspected 

using an eddy current inspection method 

following Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 

Service Bulletin No. 57–004, dated April 16, 

2007, within the last 100 hours TIS before 

September 26, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–19–14): Before further flight after either 

September 26, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–19–14), or October 1, 2009 (the 

effective date of AD 2009–18–03), visually 

inspect the upper wing strut fittings and 

examine the spherical bearings following the 

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Service 

Bulletin No. 57–005, REV No. 2, dated May 

19, 2008. 

(2) For all airplanes: Within 25 hours TIS 

after September 26, 2007 (the effective date 

of AD 2007–19–14), or within 30 days after 

September 26, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–19–14), whichever occurs first, visually 

and using eddy current methods, inspect the 

upper wing strut fittings and examine the 

spherical bearings following Pilatus Aircraft 

Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Service Bulletin No. 57– 

005, REV No. 2, dated May 19, 2008. 

(3) You may also take ‘‘unless already 

done’’ credit for any inspection specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD if done 

before October 1, 2009 (the effective date 

retained from AD 2009–18–03) following 

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Service 

Bulletin No. 57–005, dated August 30, 2007; 

or Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Service 

Bulletin No. 57–005, REV No. 1, dated 

November 19, 2007. 

(4) For all airplanes: If during any 

inspection required by paragraphs (f)(1) or 

(f)(2) of this AD you find cracks in the upper 

wing strut fitting or the spherical bearing is 

not in conformity, before further flight, 

replace the cracked upper wing strut fitting 

and/or the nonconforming spherical bearing 

following Chapter 57–00–02 of Pilatus 

Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual, dated November 30, 

2008. 

Note 1: Another proposed AD action, 

Docket No. FAA–2010–1011, proposes to 

require the incorporation of the updated 

maintenance requirements into the 

airworthiness limitations section of the 

instructions for continued airworthiness. 

Those updated maintenance requirements 

include the repetitive inspections for the 

wing strut fittings and the spherical bearings 

currently included in AD 2009–18–03. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4059; 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, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 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 AD No.: 2007– 

0241R4, dated August 31, 2010; Pilatus 

Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Service Bulletin 

No. 57–005, REV No. 2, dated May 19, 2008; 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Service 

Bulletin No. 57–005, REV No. 1, dated 

November 19, 2007; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. 

Pilatus PC–6 Service Bulletin No. 57–005, 

dated August 30, 2007; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. 

Pilatus PC–6 Service Bulletin No. 57–004, 

dated April 16, 2007; and Chapter 57–00–02 

of Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC–6 Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual, dated November 30, 

2008, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

September 30, 2010. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25289 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 139 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0997; Notice No. 10– 

14] 

RIN 2120–AJ38 

Safety Management System for 

Certificated Airports 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action would require 

each certificate holder to establish a 

safety management system (SMS) for its 

entire airfield environment (including 

movement and non-movement areas) to 

improve safety at airports hosting air 

carrier operations. An SMS is a 

formalized approach to managing safety 

by developing an organization-wide 

safety policy, developing formal 

methods of identifying hazards, 

analyzing and mitigating risk, 

developing methods for ensuring 

continuous safety improvement, and 

creating organization-wide safety 

promotion strategies. When 

systematically applied in an SMS, these 

activities provide a set of decisionmaking tools that airport management 

can use to improve safety. This proposal 

would require a certificate holder to 

submit an implementation plan and 

implement an SMS within timeframes 

commensurate with its class of Airport 

Operating Certificate (AOC). 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before January 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0997 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., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, West Building 

Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Take 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: (202) 493–2251. 

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Keri Spencer, 

Office of Airports Safety and Standards, 

Airports Safety and Operations 

Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–8972; fax (202) 

493–1416; e-mail keri.spencer@faa.gov. 

For legal questions, contact Robert 

Hawks, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Regulations Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–7143; fax (202) 

267–7971; e-mail: rob.hawks@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

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. 

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44706, 

‘‘Airport operating certificates.’’ Under 

that section, Congress charges the FAA 

with issuing airport operating 

certificates that contain terms that the 

Administrator finds necessary to ensure 

safety in air transportation. This 

proposed rule is within the scope of that 

authority because it requires all holders 

of an airport operating certificate to 

develop, implement, and maintain an 

SMS. The development and 

implementation of an SMS ensures 

safety in air transportation by assisting 

airports in proactively identifying and 

mitigating safety hazards. 

Background 

The FAA is committed to 

continuously improving safety in air 

transportation. As the demand for air 

transportation increases, the impacts of 

additional air traffic and surface 

operations, changes in air traffic 

procedures, and airport construction 

can heighten the risks of aircraft 

operations. While the FAA’s use of 

prescriptive regulations and technical 

operating standards has been effective, 

such regulations may leave gaps best 

addressed through improved 

management practices. As the certificate 

holder best understands its own 

operating environment, it is in the best 

position to address many of its own 

safety issues. While the FAA would still 

conduct regular inspections, SMS’s 

proactive emphasis on hazard 

identification and mitigation, and on 

communication of safety issues, 

provides certificate holders robust tools 

to improve safety. 

The International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) defines SMS as a 

‘‘systematic approach to managing 

safety, including the necessary 

organizational structures, 

accountabilities, policies, and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1