34956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(g) For Group 2 Airplanes: Unless already 

done, do the following actions: 

(1) Within the next 10 hours TIS after May 

10, 2010 (the effective date retained from AD 

2010–10–01): 

(i) For all aircraft not incorporating 

computer numeric control (CNC) machined 

elevator hinges, inspect and repair the left 

and right horizontal stabilizer rear pivot 

attachment installation following instruction 

‘‘3. Rear Pivot Attachment Inspection,’’ of 

Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service 

Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated 

November 13, 2008; or Gippsland 

Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– 

GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010; 

and, 

(ii) For all aircraft, inspect the left and right 

rear attach bolt mating surfaces for damage or 

an out of square condition and replace the 

left and right rear attach bolts following 

instruction ‘‘5. Rear Attach Bolt 

Replacement,’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics 

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 

02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or 

Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service 

Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated 

April 21, 2010. Reworking the mating 

surfaces by spotfacing is no longer 

acceptable. If the mating surfaces are 

damaged, not square, or were previously 

reworked by spotfacing the surface, before 

further flight, replace the parts as specified 

in Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service 

Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated 

November 13, 2008; or Gippsland 

Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– 

GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010. 

(2) Within the next 10 hours TIS after May 

10, 2010 (the effective date retained from AD 

2010–10–01) and repetitively thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 12 

months, whichever occurs first, for all 

aircraft: 

(i) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer 

externally following instruction ‘‘2. External 

Inspection (Lower flange, Stabilizer rear 

spar),’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory 

Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, 

dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland 

Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– 

GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010; 

and 

(ii) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer 

internally following instruction ‘‘4. Internal 

Inspection,’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics 

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 

02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or 

Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service 

Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated 

April 21, 2010. 

(3) If during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g)(2) of this AD any excessive 

local deflection or movement of the lower 

skin surrounding the lower pivot attachment, 

cracking, or working (loose) rivet is found, 

before further flight, obtain an FAA-approved 

repair scheme from the manufacturer and 

incorporate this repair scheme. Due to FAA 

policy, the repair scheme/modification for 

crack damage must include an immediate 

repair of the crack. The repair scheme cannot 

be by repetitive inspection only. The repair 

scheme/modification may incorporate 

repetitive inspections in addition to the 

repetitive inspections required in paragraph 

(g)(2) of this AD. Continued operational flight 

with un-repaired crack damage is not 

permitted. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: 

(1) ‘‘Requirement: 1. Daily Inspection 

(Stabilizer attach bolt)’’ of the service 

information requires a daily inspection of the 

stabilizer attach bolt. The daily inspection is 

not a requirement of this AD. Instead of the 

daily inspection, we require you to perform, 

within 10 hours TIS, ‘‘Requirement 3. Rear 

Pivot Attachment Inspection’’ and 

‘‘Requirement 5. Rear Attachment Bolt 

Replacement’’ of the service information. 

Compliance with requirement 3. and 5. is a 

terminating action for the daily inspection, 

and we are requiring these within 10 hours 

TIS after the effective date of AD 2009–05– 

01 for Group 1 airplanes and AD 2010–10– 

01 for Group 2 airplanes. 

(2) ‘‘Requirement: 2. External Inspection 

(Lower flange, Stabilizer rear spar)’’ of the 

service information does not specify any 

action if excessive local deflection or 

movement of lower skin, cracking, or 

working (loose) rivet is found. We require 

obtaining and incorporating an FAAapproved repair scheme from the 

manufacturer before further flight. 

(3) The MCAI does not state if further flight 

with known cracks is allowed. FAA policy is 

to not allow further flight with known cracks 

in critical structure. We require that if any 

cracks are found when accomplishing the 

inspection required in paragraphs (f)(2) and 

(g)(2) of this AD, you must repair the cracks 

before further flight. 

(4) The service information does not state 

that parts with spotfaced nut and bolt mating 

surfaces require replacement. However, the 

service information no longer allows 

reworking of the mating surfaces by 

spotfacing. We require that if any nut and 

bolt surfaces were previously reworked by 

spotfacing, you must replace the parts. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(h) 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 

(i) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety 

Authority AD No. AD/GA8/5, Amdt 4, dated 

May 11, 2010; Gippsland Aeronautics 

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 

02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; and 

Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service 

Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated 

April 21, 2010, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 

14, 2010. 

Sandra J. Campbell, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14986 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0632; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–CE–025–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Robert E. 

Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland DH.C1 

Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, 

and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Robert E. Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland 

DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 

22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A 

airplanes. This proposed AD would 

require a one-time inspection of the flap 

operating system for an unauthorized 

latch plate design installation. This 

proposed AD results from a report of a 

latch plate failing in service that was not 

made in accordance with the applicable 

de Havilland drawing. We are proposing 

this AD to detect and correct 

unauthorized latch plate design 

installation, which could result in an 

un-commanded retraction of the flaps. 

This failure could lead to a stall during 

a landing approach. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 5, 2010. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 34957 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD: 

• 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. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact de Havilland 

Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, 

Cambridgeshire, CB22 4QR, England, 

phone: +44 (0) 1223 830090; fax: +44 (0) 

1223 830085; e-mail: 

info@dhsupport.com; Internet: http:// 

www.dhsupport.com/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carey O’Kelley, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, 

College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: 

(404) 474–5543; fax: (404) 474–5606. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number, ‘‘FAA–2010–0632; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–CE–025–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

concerning this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We have received a report of a latch 

plate supplied under part number (P/N) 

C1–CF–1489 failing in service on a 

Model DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 

21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, or DH.C1 

Chipmunk 22A airplane. The part in 

question was not manufactured to the 

de Havilland drawing for P/N C1–CF– 

1489. The unapproved latch plate was 

made of a shaft that was pressed into a 

plate, rather than being machined from 

bar material as one piece. The shaft and 

plate on the unapproved part can 

become separated or bent, resulting in 

rapid wear and failure of the part. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in an un-commanded retraction of 

the flaps. This failure could lead to a 

stall during a landing approach. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed de Havilland 

Support Limited Technical News Sheet 

(TNS) CT(C1) No 208 Issue 1, dated 

January 3, 2009. The service information 

describes procedures for inspecting the 

flap operating system latch plate for an 

unapproved part installation. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all information and 

determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. This proposed AD would 

require a one-time inspection of the flap 

operating system for an unauthorized 

latch plate design installation. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 64 airplanes in the U.S. 

registry. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

the proposed inspection: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost 

per airplane 

Total cost 

on U.S. 

operators 

3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 ............................................. Not Applicable ..................................................... $255 $16,320 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of airplanes 

that may need this replacement: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

.5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 ................................................................................................................ $175 $217.50 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
34958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket that 

contains the proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information 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 Docket Office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is located at the street 

address stated in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

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 adding 

the following new AD: 

Robert E. Rust, Jr.: Docket No. FAA–2010– 

0632; Directorate Identifier 2010–CE– 

025–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by 

August 5, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model DeHavilland 

DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, 

and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A airplanes, all 

serial numbers, that are certificated in any 

category. 

Note: These airplanes are also identified as 

CHIPMUNK 22A, CHIPMUNK DHC–1T10, 

CHIPMUNK T.10 MK–22, DH.C1 MK22A, 

DHC–1, DHC–1 CHIPMUNK, DHC–1 

CHIPMUNK 22, DHC–1 SERIES 22, or DHC– 

1 T.MK. 10. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from a report of a latch 

plate supplied under part number C1–CF– 

1489 failing in service. The part in question 

was not manufactured to the applicable de 

Havilland drawing. The unapproved latch 

plate was made of a shaft that was pressed 

into a plate, rather than being machined from 

bar material as one piece. The shaft and plate 

on the unapproved part can become 

separated or bent, resulting in rapid wear and 

failure of the part. This condition, if not 

corrected, could result in an un-commanded 

retraction of the flaps. This failure could lead 

to a stall during a landing approach. 

Compliance 

(f) To address this problem, you must do 

the following, unless already done: 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(1) Inspect the flap operating system to identify 

the part number (P/N) of the latch plate installed. If latch plate P/N C1–CF–1489 is installed, inspect the latch plate to determine if 

it is in compliance with the design standard. 

An unapproved latch plate P/N C1–CF–1489 

is made from two pieces pressed together 

while one that complies with the design 

standard is machined in one piece from bar 

material. 

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

effective date of this AD or within 90 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. 

Follow de Havilland Support Limited Technical 

News Sheet (TNS) CT(C1) No 208 Issue 1, 

dated January 3, 2009. 

(2) If during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD an unapproved latch 

plate P/N C1–CF–1489 is found, replace the 

latch plate with a latch plate that complies 

with the design standard. The following U.S. 

standard hardware may be substituted for the 

hardware specified in the service information: 

Before further flight after the inspection where 

the unapproved latch plate P/N C1–CF– 

1849 was found. 

Follow de Havilland Support Limited TNS 

CT(C1) No 208 Issue 1, dated January 3, 

2009. 

(i) 1/16′′ diameter cotter pin that is P/N 

MS24665–153 (or equivalent) in place of split 

pin P/N SP90/C and; 

(ii) Washer that is P/N MS15795–806B (or 

equivalent) in place of washer P/N SP13/B. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Carey 

O’Kelley, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; telephone: (404) 474–5543; fax: (404) 

474–5606. 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. 

Related Information 

(h) To get copies of the service information 

referenced in this AD, contact de Havilland 

Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, 

Cambridgeshire, CB22 4QR, England, phone: 

+44 (0) 1223 830090; fax: +44 (0) 1223 

830085; e-mail: info@dhsupport.com; 

Internet: http://www.dhsupport.com/. To 

view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 

14, 2010. 

Sandra J. Campbell, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14989 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS