386 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 28, 1994.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–59 Filed 1–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–197–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 727 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 727 series airplanes, that

currently requires repetitive visual

inspections to detect cracking in the

elevator rear spar and repair, if

necessary. It also provides for an

optional terminating action for the

repetitive inspections. This action

would add an additional one-time

inspection of certain airplanes for

clearance between the shear plate and

the radii of the rear spar; and would

provide additional instructions for the

terminating action. This proposal is

prompted by reports of cracking in the

rear spar of the elevator at the hinge

fitting attachment of the control tab and

reports of loose hinge fittings at the

crack locations. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent cracking of the elevator rear

spar, which could cause excessive free

play of the elevator control tab and

possible tab flutter, and could result in

loss of controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No.94–NM–

197–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Walter Sippel, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–121S, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2774;

fax (206) 227–1181.

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 94–NM–197–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.

94–NM–197–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On October 30, 1987, the FAA issued

AD 87–24–03, amendment 39–5769 (52

FR 43742, November 16, 1987),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 727

series airplanes, to require repetitive

visual inspection to detect cracking of

the elevator rear spar, and repair, if

necessary. That action was prompted by

reports of cracking in the elevator rear

spar at the control tab hinge fitting

attachment, and loose hinge fittings at

the crack locations. The requirements of

that AD are intended to detect cracking

in the elevator rear spar which, if not

corrected, could lead to loss of

controllability of the airplane. –

Since the issuance of that AD, there

have been several reports of cracking in

the radii at the tab hinge fitting of the

rear spar, and reports of loose hinge

fittings at the crack locations on

airplanes that were modified in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

727–55–0087, dated June 20, 1986. The

modification described in that Boeing

service bulletin was considered to be

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirements of AD 87–24–

03. The manufacturer has advised that

the cause of this cracking is attributable

to continued contact between the shear

plate and the radii of the elevator rear

spar. Cracking in this area, if not

corrected, could cause excessive free

play of the elevator control tab and

possible tab flutter, and could result in

loss of controllability of the airplane.–

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Service Bulletin 727–55–0087,

Revision 1, dated March 31, 1994,

which describes procedures for

continued repetitive visual inspections

to detect cracking of the elevator rear

spar, and repair, if necessary. For

airplanes that have been modified in

accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin727–55–0087, dated June 20,

1986, the service bulletin describes

procedures for an additional one-time

inspection to ensure clearance between

the shear plate and the rear spar radii.

Additionally, for all other airplanes,

Revision 1 of this service bulletin

provides instructions for accomplishing

an improved modification or repair that

would eliminate the need for repetitive

inspections.

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 87–24–03 to require

continued repetitive visual inspections

to detect cracking of the elevator rear

spar, and repair, if necessary. However,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 387

this proposal would add a one-time

inspection to determine clearance

between the shear plate and the rear

spar radii of the elevator rear spar on

airplanes on which the terminating

action specified in AD 87–24–03 has

been accomplished. The proposed AD

would also provide for an improved

modification or repair of the elevator

rear spar, which, if accomplished,

would provide terminating action for

the repetitive visual inspection

requirements. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.–

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this requirement. –

There are approximately 1,531 Model

727 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 1,102 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.–

The inspections of the elevator rear

spar that were previously required by

AD 87–24–03, and retained in this

proposal, take approximately 12 work

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an

average of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of

this inspection requirement on U.S.

operators of previously modified

airplanes is estimated to be $793,440, or

$720 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The one-time inspection of previously

modified airplanes that would be

required by this proposal would take

approximately 12 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the one-time inspection requirement of

this proposal on U.S. operators of

previously modified airplanes is

estimated to be $720 per airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–5769 (52 FR

43742), and by adding a new

airworthiness directive (AD), to read as

follows:

Boeing: Docket 94–NM–197–AD. Supersedes

AD 87–24–03, Amendment 39–5769.

Applicability: Model 727 series airplanes,

line numbers 1 through 1719 inclusive,

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (e) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD. –

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent excessive free play of the

elevator control tab and possible tab flutter,

accomplish the following: –

(a) For airplanes on which the modification

described in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–55–

0087, dated June 20, 1986 (the terminating

action specified in AD 87–24–03, amendment

39–5769), has not been accomplished: Prior

to the accumulation of 27,000 flight hours or

within the next 4,000 flight hours after

December 24, 1987 (the effective date of AD

87–24–03 amendment 39–5769), whichever

occurs later, perform a visual inspection of

the elevator rear spar to detect cracking, in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

727–55–0087, dated June 20, 1986, or

Revision 1, dated March 31, 1994. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 4,000 flight hours. After the effective

date of this AD, only Revision 1 of this

service bulletin shall be used.

(b) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, accomplish paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin 727–55–0087, dated June 20, 1986,

or Revision 1, dated March 31, 1994. After

the effective date of this AD, only Revision

1 of this service bulletin shall be used.–

(1) If any crack is found that is within the

specified limits in Part 1 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin, accomplish paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Prior to further flight, perform a timelimited repair by stop drilling the crack in

accordance with the service bulletin. Within

1,600 flight hours after the repair, repeat the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD. If any crack growth is detected after the

stop drilling, repair prior to further flight, in

accordance with Part III of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(ii) Prior to the accumulation of 3,200 flight

hours after stop drilling, repair the elevator

rear spar in accordance with Part III of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(2) If any crack is found that is outside the

specified limits of Part 1 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with Part III of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.
388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(c) For airplanes on which the modification

specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–55–

0087, dated June 20, 1986, (terminating

action specified in AD 87–24–03, amendment

39–5769) has been accomplished : Prior to

the accumulation of 1,600 flight hours, or

within 12 months after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later, conduct an

inspection to ensure proper clearance

between the shear plate and the radii of the

rear spar, in accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin 727–55–0087, Revision 1, dated

March 31, 1994.–

(1) If clearance is within the limits

specified in Part I of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin, no further

action is required by this AD.

(2) If clearance is outside the limits

specified in Part I of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin, prior to

further flight, reaccomplish the repair in

accordance with Part III of the service

bulletin. After modification, no further action

is required by this AD.–

(d) Modification or repair of the elevator

rear spar in accordance with Part II or Part

III of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Boeing Service Bulletin 727–55–0087,

Revision 1, dated March 31, 1994, constitutes

terminating action for the requirements

required of this AD.

(e) 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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport 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, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.–

(f) 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

December 28, 1994.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–60 Filed 1–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–155–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Canadair

Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet

Series 100) Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that proposed a new airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Canadair Model CL–600–2B19 series

airplanes. That action would have

required removal of certain shear pins

and installation of stronger shear pins

on the elevator flutter dampers. The

proposed actions were intended to

prevent problems associated with

undampened vibration of the elevators

in normal cruise conditions. Since the

issuance of the NPRM, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has

issued other rulemaking that positively

addresses the identified unsafe

condition. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Franco Pieri, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANE–172, New York

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 181

South Franklin Avenue, Room 202,

Valley Stream, New York 11581;

telephone (516) 791–6220; fax (516)

791–9024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

add a new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Canadair Model

CL–600–2B19 series airplanes, was

published as a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on October 11, 1994 (59 FR

51392). The proposed rule would have

required removal of certain shear pins

from the elevator flutter dampers, and

installation of stronger shear pins. That

action was originally prompted by a

report of sheared-off shear pins found

on one airplane’s elevator dampers. The

proposed actions were intended to

prevent undampened vibration of the

elevators in normal cruise conditions,

resulting from the failure of the shear

pins installed in the elevator flutter

dampers; when combined with

hydraulic system failures, this condition

can result in reduced controllability of

the airplane. –

Since the issuance of that NPRM,

Transport Canada Aviation, which is the

airworthiness authority for Canada, has

notified the FAA that the lugs of the

elevator flutter damper sheared off of

two Model CL–600–2B19 series

airplanes. Investigation revealed that the

shear pins that were installed in the

elevator flutter dampers on these

incident airplanes were the stronger

pins, whose installation would have

been required by the NPRM. The

stronger shear pins caused the loads to

transfer to the lugs of the elevator flutter

damper, which subsequently failed

under the increased loads. –

Consequently, on November 17, 1994,

the FAA issued AD 94–24–02,

amendment 39–9075 (59 FR 60888,

November 29, 1994), applicable to

certain Canadair Model CL–600–2B19

series airplanes, to require the removal

of all elevator flutter dampers. It also

requires revisions to the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) that

advise the flight crew of the need to

perform daily checks to verify proper

operation of the elevator control system,

and that restrict altitude and airspeed of

the airplane. –

The FAA has determined that the

actions currently required by AD 94–

24–02 positively address the previously

identified unsafe condition. Removal of

the elevator flutter dampers from these

airplanes and the daily checks of the

elevator control system will ensure that

the risk of jamming or restricting

movement of the elevator is eliminated.

Additionally, the operational limitation

will enable the pilot to avert conditions

of potential flutter. –

In light of the fact that other

rulemaking adequately addresses the

identified unsafe condition, the FAA

finds that the previously proposed

action is unwarranted and hereby

withdraws the NPRM.–

Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes

only such action, and does not preclude

the agency from issuing another notice

in the future, nor does it commit the

agency to any course of action in the

future.–

Since this action only withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is

neither a proposed nor a final rule and

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39–

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal–

Accordingly, the notice of proposed

rulemaking, Docket 94–NM–155–AD,

published in the Federal Register on

October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51392), is

withdrawn.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 28, 1994.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–61 Filed 1–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U