24218 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

96–10–10 Jetstream: Amendment 39–9617.

Docket 95–NM–95–AD.

Applicability: Model 4101 airplanes;

equipped with handrail assembly, Part No.

6020203 Issue C, with Modification No.

JM41179 (reference Jetstream Alert Service

Bulletin J41–A52–009); certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (f) 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 entrance door

handrail assembly, which subsequently

could result in injury to passengers,

flightcrew, or groundcrew, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 50 landings after the effective

date of this AD, conduct a detailed visual

inspection of the handrail assembly at the

main entrance door to detect loose or missing

rivets, abnormal movement between the

handrail pivot-tube and the spigot that

attaches to the bearing assembly, and cracks

on the handrail pivot-tube, in accordance

with Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin J41–

A52–036, dated June 13, 1994.

(b) If no cracks or other discrepancies are

detected during the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 300 hours time-in-service.

(c) If evidence of any loose or missing rivet

is revealed, or if abnormal movement

between the handrail pivot-tube and the

spigot that attaches to the bearing assembly

is detected, as a result of any of the

inspections required by this AD, prior to

further flight, accomplish the procedures

specified in paragraph 2.B.(4) of Jetstream

Alert Service Bulletin J41–A52–036, dated

June 13, 1994. Thereafter, repeat the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD at intervals not to exceed 300 hours timein-service.

(d) If evidence of cracking is revealed as a

result of any of the inspections required by

this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish

the requirements of either paragraph (d)(1),

(d)(2), or (d)(3) of this AD:

(1) Install a new handrail assembly, Part

No. 6020203 Issue C standard, as specified in

paragraph 2.B.(5)(d) of Jetstream Alert

Service Bulletin J41–A52–036, dated June 13,

1994. After installation, repeat the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD at

intervals not to exceed 300 hours time-inservice. Or

(2) Install the interim reinforcement of the

handrail assembly (Customer Option Kit. No.

Jk42619) in accordance with Jetstream

Service Bulletin J41–52–041–42619, dated

June 13, 1994. Such installation constitutes

terminating action for the inspections

required by this AD. Or

Note 2: Jetstream Service Bulletin J41–52–

041–42619 refers to Flight Refuelling Service

Bulletin 6020303–52–1 for additional

installation information.

(3) Install the structural improvements of

the door and door support, and the

completely redesigned door handrail

assembly, in accordance with Jetstream

Service Bulletin J41–52–025, dated February

11, 1994. Such installation constitutes

terminating action for the inspections

required by this AD.

Note 3: Jetstream Service Bulletin J41–52–

025 refers to Flight Refuelling Service

Bulletin 6020303–52–2 for additional

installation information.

(e) Terminating action for the inspections

required by this AD consists of installation of

the item(s) specified in either paragraph

(e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD:

(1) Installation of the interim reinforcement

of the handrail assembly (Customer Option

Kit. No. Jk42619) in accordance with

Jetstream Service Bulletin J41–52–041–

42619, dated June 13, 1994. Or

(2) Installation of the structural

improvements of the door and door support,

and the completely redesigned door handrail

assembly, in accordance with Jetstream

Service Bulletin J41–52–025, dated February

11, 1994.

(f) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(g) 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.

(h) The inspections shall be done in

accordance with Jetstream Alert Service

Bulletin J41–A52–036, dated June 13, 1994.

The interim reinforcement of the handrail

assembly shall be done in accordance with

Jetstream Service Bulletin J41–52–041–

42619, dated June 13, 1994. The installation

of the structural improvements of the door

and door support, and the completely

redesigned door handrail assembly, shall be

done in accordance with Jetstream Service

Bulletin J41–52–025, dated February 11,

1994. 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 Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 16029,

Dulles International Airport, Washington, DC

20041–6029. Copies may be inspected at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

June 18, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7,

1996.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11882 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–SW–01–AD; Amendment

39–9616; AD 96–06–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell

Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model 47B,

47B–3, 47D, 47D–1, 47G, 47G–2, 47G–

2A, 47G–2A–1, 47G–3, 47G–3B, 47G–

3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–3B–2A, 47G–4,

47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–5A, 47H–1, 47J,

47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47–K Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This document publishes in

the Federal Register an amendment

adopting Airworthiness Directive (AD)

96–06–12 which was sent previously to

all known U.S. owners and operators of

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell)

Model 47B, 47B–3, 47D, 47D–1, 47G,

47G–2, 47G–2A, 47G–2A–1, 47G–3,

47G–3B, 47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–

3B–2A, 47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–

5A, 47H–1, 47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47–

K helicopters by individual letters. This

AD requires a visual inspection of each

tail rotor blade (blade) tip, abrasion

strip, blade skin, and blade butt for

corrosion or delamination. This

amendment is prompted by reports that

a number of Model 47 helicopter blades

were manufactured using a clad

aluminum alloy material instead of a

bare aluminum alloy material. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent premature

delamination or separation of the blade

tip block or the abrasion strip, which

could lead to failure of the blade and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24219

DATES: Effective May 29, 1996, to all

persons except those persons to whom

it was made immediately effective by

priority letter AD 96–06–12, issued on

March 13, 1996, which contained the

requirements of this amendment.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 96–SW–01–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Tony Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,

Rotorcraft Certification Office,

Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas

76137, telephone (817) 222–5177; fax

(817) 222–5960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

13, 1996, the FAA issued priority letter

AD 96–06–12, applicable to Bell Model

47B, 47B–3, 47D, 47D–1, 47G, 47G–2,

47G–2A, 47G–2A–1, 47G–3, 47G–3B,

47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–3B–2A,

47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–5A, 47H–

1, 47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47–K

helicopters, which requires, prior to the

first flight of each day, and at intervals

not to exceed 10 hours time-in-service

(TIS) if the helicopter is operated for

more than 10 hours in any one day, a

visual inspection of each blade tip,

abrasion strip, blade skin, and blade

butt for corrosion or delamination. That

action was prompted by reports that a

number of Model 47 helicopter blades

were manufactured using a clad

aluminum alloy material instead of a

bare aluminum alloy material. The shear

and peel strength of bonded clad

aluminum alloy is less than the shear

and peel strength of bonded bare

aluminum alloy. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in premature

delamination or separation of the blade

tip block or the abrasion strip, which

could lead to failure of the blade and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

Since the unsafe condition described

is likely to exist or develop on other Bell

Model 47B, 47B–3, 47D, 47D–1, 47G,

47G–2, 47G–2A, 47G–2A–1, 47G–3,

47G–3B, 47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–

3B–2A, 47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–

5A, 47H–1, 47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47–

K helicopters of the same type design,

the FAA issued priority letter AD 96–

06–12 to prevent premature

delamination or separation of the blade

tip block or the abrasion strip, which

could lead to failure of the blade and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter. The AD requires, prior to the

first flight of each day, and at intervals

not to exceed 10 hours TIS, if the

helicopter is operated for more than 10

hours in any one day, a visual

inspection of each blade tip, abrasion

strip, blade skin, and blade butt for

corrosion or delamination. If any of the

inspections reveal corrosion or

delamination, removal of the blades and

replacement with airworthy blades is

required.

Since it was found that immediate

corrective action was required, notice

and opportunity for prior public

comment thereon were impracticable

and contrary to the public interest, and

good cause existed to make the AD

effective immediately by individual

letters issued on March 13, 1996 to all

known U.S. owners and operators of

Bell Model 47B, 47B–3, 47D, 47D–1,

47G, 47G–2, 47G–2A, 47G–2A–1, 47G–

3, 47G–3B, 47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–

3B–2A, 47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–

5A, 47H–1, 47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47–

K helicopters. These conditions still

exist, and the AD is hereby published in

the Federal Register as an amendment

to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it

effective to all persons.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 96–SW–01–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from 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.

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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
24220 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive to

read as follows:

AD 96–06–12 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.:

Amendment 39–9616. Docket No. 96–

SW–01–AD.

Applicability: Model 47B, 47B–3, 47D,

47D–1, 47G, 47G–2, 47G–2A, 47G–2A–1,

47G–3, 47G–3B, 47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–

3B–2A, 47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–5A,

47H–1, 47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47–K

helicopters, with tail rotor blade assembly,

part number (P/N) 047–642–117–105, serial

numbers (S/N) A–1943 through A–2068,

installed, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

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

helicopters 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 (f) 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 helicopter

from the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent premature delamination or

separation of the tail rotor blade (blade) tip

block or the abrasion strip, which could lead

to failure of the blade and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the first flight of each day,

visually inspect each blade tip, abrasion

strip, blade skin and blade butt as follows:

(1) Inspect each blade tip for corrosion or

delamination adjacent to the abrasion strip

and tip block.

(2) Inspect each abrasion strip for corrosion

or delamination, paying particular attention

to the abrasion strip leading edge.

(3) Inspect each blade skin for corrosion,

paying particular attention to any areas of

paint cracking or damage. Inspect all bonded

joints for corrosion or delamination.

(4) Inspect each blade butt around the

bearings for corrosion or delamination.

(b) Thereafter, conduct the visual

inspections specified in paragraph (a) of this

AD at intervals not to exceed 10 hours timein-service.

(c) If the inspections required by

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD reveal any

corrosion or delamination, replace the blade

with an airworthy blade before further flight.

(d) Installation of any airworthy tail rotor

blade assembly which has been FAAapproved for the particular Model 47

helicopter, except for P/N 047–642–117–105

with S/N A–1943 through A–2068,

constitutes a terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(e) Installation of tail rotor blade assembly,

P/N 047–642–117–105M, including those

with S/N A–1943 through A–2068,

constitutes a terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

Note 2: Bell Helicopter Textron Alert

Service Bulletin No. 47–96–21, dated January

29, 1996, pertains to this AD.

(f) 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, Rotorcraft

Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Rotorcraft Certification

Office.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Rotorcraft Certification

Office.

(g) 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 helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

May 29, 1996, to all persons except those

persons to whom it was made immediately

effective by Priority Letter AD 96–06–12,

issued March 13, 1996, which contained the

requirements of this amendment.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 3,

1996.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11958 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–SW–02–AD; Amendment

39–9615; AD 96–10–09]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Helicopter Systems Model

369, 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF,

369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, and 500N

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to McDonnell Douglas

Helicopter Systems (MDHS) Model 369,

369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H,

369HE, 369HM, 369HS, and 500N

helicopters. This action requires initial

and repetitive inspections of each main

rotor blade (blade) root for either cracks

or paint and sealant cracking or

separation between the lower surface

root end fitting and the doubler. This

amendment is prompted by one

accident in which a blade separated

from the helicopter, as well as eight

other reports of cracked blades. The

actions specified in this AD are

intended to prevent failure of a blade

resulting in separation of the blade and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Effective May 29, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of 15 days

after the date of publication in the

Federal Register.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 96–SW–02–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from MDHS,

Technical Publications, Bldg. 530/B111,

5000 E. McDowell Rd., Mesa, Arizona

85215–9797. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, 2601 Meacham

Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas

76137; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John Cecil, Aerospace Engineer, ANM–

120L, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Northwest Mountain Region,

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood,

California, telephone (310) 627–5322,

fax (310) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

amendment adopts a new AD that is

applicable to MDHS Model 369, 369A,

369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE,

369HM, 369HS, and 500N helicopters.

One accident occurred in August 1995

in which one blade separated from the

rotor system while the helicopter was

on the ground. Additionally, there were

eight reports of blade cracking prior to

the one accident, all of which were

discovered during either routine

inspections or inspections resulting

from reported abnormal vibrations.

Subsequent investigations revealed that

bonding separation occurred between

the lower surface root end fitting and

the doubler. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in failure of a

blade resulting in separation of the

blade and subsequent loss of control of

the helicopter.