Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15373

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–09–AD; Amendment 39–

9872; AD 97–01–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. PA24, PA28R, PA30,

PA32R, PA34, and PA39 Series

Airplanes; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document makes a

correction to Airworthiness Directive

(AD) 97–01–01, which was published in

the Federal Register on January 2, 1997

(62 FR 10), and concerns The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA24, PA28R,

PA30, PA32R, PA34, and PA39 series

airplanes. The amendment number in

this AD is incorrectly referenced as

Amendment 39–9782 instead of 39–

9872 in two places. All other reference

is correct. The AD currently requires

repetitively inspecting the main gear

sidebrace studs for cracks, and replacing

any main gear sidebrace stud found

cracked. This action corrects the AD to

reflect the right amendment number

throughout the entire document.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7362; facsimile (404) 305–

7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On December 23, 1996, the FAA

issued AD 97–01–01, Amendment 39–

9872 (62 FR 10, January 2, 1997), which

applies to Piper PA24, PA28R, PA30,

PA32R, PA34, and PA39 series

airplanes. This AD requires repetitively

inspecting the main gear sidebrace studs

for cracks, and replacing any main gear

sidebrace stud found cracked.

Need for the Correction

The amendment number in this AD is

incorrectly referenced as 39–9782,

instead of 39–9872, in two different

places. All other reference is correct. As

written, operators of Piper PA24,

PA28R, PA30, PA32R, PA34, and PA39

series airplanes may log compliance

with the right AD number, but the

wrong amendment number, therefore

causing the potential for confusion as to

whether they are in compliance with the

AD.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of

January 2, 1997 (62 FR 10), of

Amendment 39–9872; AD 97–01–01,

which was the subject of FR Doc. 96–

33231, is corrected as follows:

§ 39.13 [Corrected]

On page 11, in the third column,

section 39.13, the 12th line from the top

of the column, correct ‘‘Amendment 39–

9782’’ to ‘‘Amendment 39–9872’’.

On page 14, in the second column,

section 39.13, in paragraph (h) of the

AD, the 24th line from the bottom of the

column, correct ‘‘(39–9782)’’ to ‘‘(39–

9872)’’.

Action is taken herein to correct this

reference in AD 97–01–01 and to add

this AD correction to section 39.13 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 39.13).

The effective date remains February 7,

1997.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on March

26, 1997.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8250 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–CE–45–AD; Amendment 39–

9984; AD 97–07–10]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland

DHC–6 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to de Havilland DHC–6 series

airplanes that do not have a certain

wing strut modification (Modification 6/

1581) incorporated. This action requires

inspecting the wing struts for cracks or

damage (chafing, etc.), replacing wing

struts that are found damaged beyond

certain limits or are found cracked, and

incorporating Modification No. 6/1581

to prevent future chafing damage. This

AD results from several reports of wing

strut damage caused by the upper

fairing rubbing against the wing strut.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent failure of the wing

struts, which could result in loss of

control of the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 23, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 23,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

de Havilland, Inc., 123 Garratt

Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario,

Canada, M3K 1Y5. This information

may also be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 93–

CE–45–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, 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: Jon

Hjelm, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, 3rd Floor, Valley Stream,

New York 11581; telephone (516) 256–

7523; facsimile (516) 568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to de Havilland DHC–6 series

airplanes that do not have a certain

wing strut modification (Modification 6/

1581) incorporated was published in the

Federal Register as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on October 3, 1996

(61 FR 51619). The NPRM proposed to

require inspecting the wing struts for

cracks or damage (chafing, etc.),

replacing wing struts that are found

damaged beyond certain limits or are

found cracked, and incorporating

Modification No. 6/1581 to prevent

future chafing damage. Modification No.

6/1581 consists of installing a

preformed nylon shield around the area

of each wing strut of the upper end

closest to the wing. Accomplishment of

the proposed inspection and

modification as specified in the NPRM

would be required in accordance with

de Havilland Service Bulletin No. 6/342,

dated February 23, 1976.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of
15374 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the AD as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. The FAA has

determined that these minor corrections

will not change the meaning of the AD

and will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

FAA’s Aging Commuter Aircraft Policy

This AD is consistent with the FAA’s

aging commuter airplane policy. This

policy simply states that reliance on

repetitive inspections of critical areas on

airplanes utilized in commuter service

carries an unnecessary safety risk when

a design change exists that could

eliminate or, in certain instances,

reduce the number of those critical

inspections. The alternative to

incorporating Modification No. 6/1581

on de Havilland DHC–6 series airplanes

would be relying on repetitive

inspections to detect damaged wing

struts.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 169 airplanes

in the U.S. registry will be affected by

this AD, that it will take approximately

8 workhours per airplane to accomplish

the required action, and that the average

labor rate is approximately $60 an hour.

Parts cost approximately $150 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $106,470.

This figure is based upon the

presumption that no affected airplane

owner/operator has incorporated

Modification No. 6/1581.

De Havilland has informed the FAA

that enough parts have been distributed

to equip approximately 11 of the

affected airplanes. Presuming that each

set of parts is incorporated on an

affected airplane, the cost impact upon

U.S. operators/owners would be

reduced by $6,930 from $106,470 to

$99,540.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

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)

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, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to 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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

97–07–10 Dehavilland: Amendment 39–

9984; Docket No. 93–CE–45–AD.

Applicability: Models DHC–6–1, DHC–6–

100, DHC–6–200, and DHC–6–300 airplanes

(all serial numbers), certificated in any

category, that do not have Modification No.

6/1581 incorporated.

Note 1: Modification No. 6/1581 consists of

installing a preformed nylon shield around

the area of each wing strut at the upper end

closest to the wing.

Note 2: 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) 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

already accomplished.

To prevent failure of the wing struts, which

could result in loss of control of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD, inspect the wing struts, part number (P/

N) C6W1005 (or FAA-approved equivalent),

for cracks or damage (chafing, etc.) in

accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of de Havilland

Service Bulletin (SB) No. 6/342, dated

February 23, 1976.

(1) If damage is found on a wing strut that

exceeds 0.025-inch in depth, exceeds a total

length of 5 inches, or where any two places

of damage are separated by less than 10

inches of undamaged surface over the length

of the strut, prior to further flight, replace the

wing strut with an airworthy FAA-approved

part in accordance with the applicable

maintenance manual.

(2) If any crack is found, prior to further

flight, replace the wing strut with an

airworthy FAA-approved part in accordance

with the applicable maintenance manual.

(3) If damage is found on a wing strut that

exceeds 0.010-inch in depth, provided the

damage does not exceed 0.025-inch in depth,

the damage does not exceed a total length of

5 inches, and where any two places of

damage are separated by a minimum of 10

inches undamaged surface over the length of

the strut, within 500 hours TIS after the

inspection specified in paragraph (a) of this

AD, replace the wing strut with an airworthy

FAA-approved part in accordance with the

applicable maintenance manual.

(b) Within the next 600 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, incorporate

Modification No. 6/1581 in accordance with

the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section of de Havilland SB No. 6/342, dated

February 23, 1976.

(1) Incorporating Modification No. 6/1581

eliminates the repetitive inspection

requirement of this AD.

(2) Incorporating Modification No. 6/1581

may be accomplished at any time prior to 600

hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,

at which time it must be incorporated.

(c) 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.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 10 Fifth

Street, 3rd Floor, Valley Stream, New York

11581. The request shall be forwarded

through an appropriate FAA Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, New York ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

(e) The inspections and modification

required by this AD shall be done in

accordance de Havilland Service Bulletin No.

6/342, dated February 23, 1976. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from de

Havilland, Inc., 123 Garratt Boulevard,

Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5 Canada.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15375

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment (39–9984) becomes

effective on May 23, 1997.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March

26, 1997.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8249 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–10–AD; Amendment 39–

9985; AD 97–07–11]

Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream

Aircraft Limited HP137 Mk1, Jetstream

Series 200, and Jetstream Models 3101

and 3201 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 81–20–01,

which currently requires repetitively

inspecting the nose landing gear (NLG)

actuator support structure and the front

pressure bulkhead for cracks on

Jetstream Aircraft Limited (JAL) HP137

Mk1 and Jetstream series 200 airplanes,

and replacing any cracked part. This AD

retains the repetitive inspections

required by AD 81–20–01; requires

repetitively inspecting the NLG

retraction jack upper mounting fitting

and attachment hardware for security

bolt failure and for bolts with improper

torque levels on the HP137 Mk1,

Jetstream series 200, and Jetstream

Model 3101 airplanes, and requires

replacing any failed security bolts and

adjusting any bolt with an improper

torque level; and requires modifying the

NLG retraction jack on all affected

airplanes, as terminating action for the

repetitive inspections. This AD results

from reports of NLG jack mounting

fitting failures on several of the affected

airplanes, and the Federal Aviation

Administration’s policy on aging

commuter-class aircraft. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent failure of the NLG caused by a

cracked NLG actuator support structure

or cracked front pressure bulkhead,

which, if not detected and corrected,

could lead to nose gear collapse and

damage to the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 23, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 23,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

Jetstream Aircraft Limited, Prestwick

International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9

2RW, Scotland, telephone (44–292)

79888; facsimile (44–292) 79703; or

Jetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian, P.O.

Box 16029, Dulles International Airport,

Washington, D.C. 20041–6029;

telephone (703) 406–1161; facsimile

(703) 406–1469. This information may

also be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

95-CE–10-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, 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: Mr.

Tom Rodriguez, Program Manager,

Brussels Aircraft Certification Division,

FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle East

Office, c/o American Embassy, B–1000

Brussels, Belgium; telephone (32 2)

508.2715; facsimile (32 2) 230.6899; or

Mr. S.M. Nagarajan, Project Officer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone (816) 426–6932;

facsimile (816) 426–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain JAL HP137 Mk1,

Jetstream series 200, and Jetstream

Models 3101 and 3201 airplanes that do

not have an improved design

attachment bracket (Modification JM

5285) installed for the nose landing gear

(NLG) retraction jack was published in

the Federal Register as a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

September 19, 1995 (60 FR 48429). The

NPRM proposed to supersede AD 81–

20–01 with a new AD that would:

—Retain the requirement contained in

AD 81–20–01 of repetitively

inspecting (using dye penetrant

methods) the NLG actuator support

structure and the front pressure

bulkhead for cracks on JAL HP137

Mk1 and Jetstream series 200

airplanes that do not have the front

pressure bulkhead strengthened in the

area of the NLG jack attachment

fitting (Modification No. 5127), and

replacing or repairing any cracked

NLG actuator support structure or

cracked front pressure bulkhead.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections as specified in the NPRM

would be in accordance with

Jetstream Service Bulletin (SB) No. 6/

5, dated September 4, 1978.

—Require repetitively inspecting the

NLG retraction jack upper mounting

fitting and attachment hardware for

security bolt failure and bolts with

improper torque levels on the HP137

Mk1, Jetstream series 200, and

Jetstream Model 3101 airplanes, and

replacing any failed security bolts and

adjusting any bolt with an improper

torque level. Accomplishment of the

proposed inspections as specified in

the NPRM would be in accordance

with Jetstream SB 53–A–JA870510,

which consists of the following pages

and revision levels:

Pages Revision

level Date

3, 5, 6, 8, 9,

and 10.

Original

Issue.

May 26, 1987.

1, 2, 4 and 7 .. Revision 1 Nov. 10, 1987.

—Require modifying the NLG retraction

jack on the HP137 Mk1, Jetstream

series 200, and Jetstream Models 3101

and 3201 airplanes, as terminating

action for all the repetitive

inspections, including the inspections

referenced in the Model 3201

maintenance manual.

Accomplishment of the proposed

modification as specified in the

NPRM would be in accordance with

Jetstream SB 53–JM 5285, which

consists of the following pages and

revision levels:

Pages Revision

level Date

1 and 4 .......... Revision 2 Nov. 12, 1992.

2, 3, and 5

through 26.

Revision 1 May 18, 1992.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. One

comment was received regarding the

NPRM. An analysis of the comment

follows:

The commenter provides information

on the company’s fleet size and the

estimated projection on when the

proposed replacement would be

mandatory on the affected airplanes in

the company’s fleet, as well as the

number of repetitive inspections that

would be required during that time. The

commenter states that it is more

economical for the company to

incorporate the modification on its

entire fleet immediately rather than

continuing to repetitively inspect. The

commenter also mentions that parts to