Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10237

to accomplish the proposed initial

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts

to accomplish the repetitive inspections

cost approximately $100 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $110,000.

These figures do not take into account

the cost of repetitive inspections. The

FAA has no way of determining how

many repetitive inspections each

owner/operator may incur over the life

of the airplane.

In addition, AD 96–12–03 currently

requires the same inspections as the

proposed AD for all 500 of the affected

airplanes. The only difference is that

newly manufactured airplanes would be

exempt from the actions because they

have modified aft lower fuselage wing

attach fittings incorporated at

manufacture. Therefore, the cost impact

of the proposed AD for operators of all

affected airplanes is the same as AD 96–

12–03.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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) if

promulgated, 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 draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action has been placed 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, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13, is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

96–12–03, Amendment 39-9645, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

Aviat Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. 96–CE–23–

AD. Revises AD 96–12–03, Amendment

39–9645.

Applicability: The following airplane

models and serial numbers, certificated in

any category, that are equipped with aft

lower fuselage wing attach fittings

incorporating part number (P/N) 76090, 2–

2107–1, or 1-210–102, and where these aft

lower fuselage wing attach fittings on both

wings have not been modified in accordance

with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Aviat Service

Bulletin (SB) No. 25, dated April 3, 1996,

Revised November 12, 1996; or Aviat SB No.

25, dated April 3, 1996:

—Models S–1S, S–1T, S–2, S–2A, and S–

2S airplanes, all serial numbers.

—Model S–2B airplanes, serial numbers

5000 through 5348.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, 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 the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required initially within the

next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the

effective date of this AD, unless already

accomplished (compliance with AD 96–12–

03), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

50 hours TIS.

To prevent possible in-flight separation of

the wing from the airplane caused by a

cracked aft lower fuselage wing attach fitting,

accomplish the following:

(a) Inspect the aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting on both wings for cracks in

accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Aviat SB No. 25,

dated April 3, 1996, Revised November 12,

1996; or Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3,

1996.

(b) If any cracked aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting is found during any inspection

required by this AD, prior to further flight,

modify the cracked aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting in accordance with the

ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section of Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3,

1996, Revised November 12, 1996; or Aviat

SB No. 25, dated April 3, 1996. Repetitive

inspections are no longer necessary on an aft

lower fuselage wing attachment fitting that

was found cracked and has the referenced

modification incorporated.

(c) Modifying the aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting on both wings in accordance

with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Aviat SB No. 25,

dated April 3, 1996, Revised November 12,

1996; or Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3,

1996, is considered terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Denver Aircraft Certification Office,

26805 E. 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver,

Colorado 80249. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Denver ACO. Alternative methods of

compliance approved in accordance with AD

96–12–03 are considered approved for this

AD.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Denver ACO.

(f) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the service bulletin

referred to herein upon request to Aviat

Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 1240 (postal service

delivery), 672 South Washington Street

(express mail), Afton, Wyoming 83110; or

may examine this service bulletin at the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(g) This amendment revises AD 96–12–03,

Amendment 39–9645. Issued in Kansas City,

Missouri, on February 24, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–5470 Filed 3–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–17–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream

Aerospace Corporation Model G–159

(G–I) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).
10238 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Gulfstream Model G–159 (G–I)

airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive inspections to detect cracks

and loose rivets in the forward brackets

for the main landing gear (MLG) uplock

beam assembly, and replacement of the

brackets, if necessary. This action would

require the installation of redesigned

brackets that preclude the potential for

cracking and loose rivets; when

accomplished, this installation would

constitute terminating action for the

currently required inspections. This

proposal is prompted by the

development of an installation that will

positively address the identified unsafe

condition. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

failure of the bracket for the MLG

uplock beam assembly due to cracking

and loose rivets; such failure could

result in the inability to retract the MLG.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

17–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation,

Technical Operations Department, P.O.

Box 2206, M/S D–10, Savannah, Georgia

31402–2206. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE–

117A, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

Campus Building, 1701 Columbia

Avenue, Suite 2–160, College Park,

Georgia 30337–2748; telephone (404)

305–7362; fax (404) 305–7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 97–NM–17–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–17–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

In 1966, the FAA issued AD 66–10–

03, amendment 39–222 (31 FR 5660,

April 12, 1966), applicable to certain

Gulfstream Model G–159 airplanes, to

require repetitive dye penetrant and

visual inspections to detect cracks and

loose rivets in the forward brackets of

the main landing gear (MLG) uplock

beam assembly, and replacement of the

brackets, if necessary.

That action was prompted by reports

of cracks and loose rivets found in

brackets having part number (P/N)

159W10150–51/52. These conditions

were attributed to elongated rivet holes.

The requirements of that AD are

intended to prevent such cracking and

loose rivets, which could lead to the

failure of the bracket. Failure of the

bracket of the MLG uplock beam

assembly could result in the inability to

retract the MLG.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

As part of its on-going program to

address issues relevant to the continued

operational safety of the aging transport

fleet, the FAA, along with Gulfstream

Aerospace Corporation and several U.S.

and non-U.S. operators of the affected

airplanes, agreed to undertake the task

of identifying and implementing

procedures to ensure the continuing

structural airworthiness of aging

commuter-class airplanes. This group

reviewed selected customer bulletins

and aircraft service changes, applicable

to Gulfstream Model G–159 (G–I)

airplanes, to be recommended for

mandatory rulemaking action to ensure

the continued operational safety of these

airplanes.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The group reviewed and

recommended Part II of Grumman

Gulfstream Service Change No. 179,

dated March 15, 1966, for mandatory

regulatory action. (Part I of that service

change describes procedures for

repetitive inspections to detect cracks

and loose rivets in the forward brackets

of the MLG uplock beam assembly.

Those procedures were mandated by AD

66–10–03.) Part II of the service change

describes procedures for replacing the

uplock beam support brackets (angles)

with brackets of an improved design

and having P/N 159W10150–71 and

–72. Installation of these improved

brackets eliminates the need for the

repetitive inspections.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 66–10–03. It would

continue to require repetitive dye

penetrant and visual inspections to

detect cracks and loose rivets in the

forward brackets of the main landing

gear (MLG) uplock beam assembly, and

replacement of the brackets, if

necessary. This new action also would

require that the currently-installed

brackets be replaced with the improved

brackets. Once this replacement is

accomplished, the previously required

inspections may be terminated. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service change described previously.

FAA’s Determination for the Need to

Mandate the Replacement

The FAA has determined that long

term continued operational safety will

be better assured by design changes to

remove the source of the problem, rather

than by repetitive inspections. Long

term inspections may not be providing

the degree of safety assurance necessary

for the transport airplane fleet. This,

coupled with a better understanding of

the human factors associated with

numerous continual inspections, has led

the FAA to consider placing less

emphasis on inspections and more
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10239

emphasis on design improvements. The

proposed replacement requirement is in

consonance with these considerations.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 146

Gulfstream Model G–159 airplanes of

the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 72

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The inspections that are currently

required by AD 66–10–03 take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

currently required actions on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $8,640, or

$120 per airplane, per inspection.

The terminating replacement that is

proposed in this AD action would take

approximately 12 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $425 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed requirements of this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$82,440, or $1,145 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that 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) if

promulgated, 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 draft

regulatory 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, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–222 (31 FR

5660, April 12, 1966), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (formerly

Grumman): Docket 97–NM–17–AD.

Supersedes AD 66–10–03, Amendment

39–222.

Applicability: Model G–159 (G–I)

airplanes; serial numbers (S/N) 1 through 12

inclusive, 14 through 83 inclusive, and 114;

on which main landing gear uplock beam

support brackets (angles) having part

numbers (P/N) 159W10150–71 and –72 are

not installed; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, 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 (d)(1) 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 the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the brackets for the

main landing gear (MLG) uplock beam

assembly due to cracking and loose rivets,

which could result in the inability to retract

the MLG, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 50 hours time-in-service after

April 12, 1966 (the effective date of AD 66–

10–03, amendment 39–222), and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-inservice, accomplish the actions specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD in

accordance with Grumman Gulfstream

Service Change No. 179, dated March 15,

1966:

(1) Conduct a dye penetrant inspection, in

conjunction with at least a 10X magnifying

glass, to detect cracks in the MLG uplock

beam forward brackets, P/N’s 159W10150–51

and –52; and

(2) Conduct a visual inspection of the

attachments of each bracket to the firewall

bulkhead and to the main gear uplock beam

for loose rivets caused by elongated rivet

holes.

(b) If any crack or loose rivet is found

during any inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD, prior to further flight,

accomplish either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of

this AD, in accordance with Grumman

Gulfstream Service Change No. 179, dated

March 15, 1966:

Note 2: Grumman Gulfstream Service

Change No. 179A, dated March 20, 1966,

contains additional procedural information

relevant to the inspection and replacement

requirements of this AD.

(1) Replace the bracket with a new or

serviceable bracket having P/N 159W10150–

51 or –52, as applicable. After this

replacement, continue to inspect in

accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD. Or

(2) Replace the bracket with a bracket

having P/N 159W10150–71 or –72, as

applicable. This replacement constitutes

terminating action for the inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD for the replaced

bracket.

(c) Within 1,000 hours time-in-service after

the effective date of this AD, replace the

brackets for the main landing gear (MLG)

uplock beam assembly with brackets having

P/N 159W10150–71 and –72, in accordance

with Part II of Grumman Gulfstream Service

Change No. 179, dated March 15, 1966. Such

replacement constitutes terminating action

for the inspections required by this AD.

(d)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

66–10–03, amendment 39–222, are approved

as alternative methods of compliance with

this AD.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

27, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–5467 Filed 3–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U