Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19549

Regulation (FAR) Part 121 or 129, and

complying with paragraph (b) of this AD,

‘‘the FAA’’ is defined as ‘‘the cognizant

Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI).’’ For

those operators operating under FAR Part 91

or 125, and complying with paragraph (b) of

this AD, ‘‘the FAA’’ is defined as ‘‘the

cognizant Maintenance Inspector at the

appropriate FAA Flight Standards office.’’

To preclude degradation of the structural

capabilities of the airplane due to the

problems associated with corrosion,

accomplish the following:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of

this AD, within a date two years after the

effective date of this AD, complete each of

the basic tasks specified in Section 4.3 of the

Document in accordance with the procedures

specified in the Document and the schedule

specified in Figure 5 of the Document.

Thereafter, repeat each basic task at a time

interval not to exceed the repeat interval

specified in Section 4 of the Document for

that task.

Note 4: A ‘‘basic task,’’ as defined in

Section 4 of the Document, includes

inspections; procedures for a corrective

action, including repairs, under identified

circumstances; application of sealants or

corrosion inhibitors; and other follow-on

actions.

Note 5: Basic tasks completed in

accordance with the Document before the

effective date of this AD may be credited for

compliance with the initial basic task

requirements of this paragraph.

Note 6: Where non-destructive inspection

(NDI) methods are employed, in accordance

with Section 4 of the Document, the

standards and procedures used must be

acceptable to the Administrator in

accordance with FAR Section 43.13.

(b) As an alternative to the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this AD: Within one year

after the effective date of this AD, revise the

FAA-approved maintenance/inspection

program to include the corrosion control

program specified in the Document; or to

include an equivalent program that is

approved by the FAA.

(1) Any operator complying with paragraph

(b) of this AD may use an alternative

recordkeeping method to that otherwise

required by FAR § 91.417 or § 121.380 for the

actions required by this AD, provided it is

approved by the FAA and is included in a

revision to the FAA-approved maintenance/

inspection program.

(2) Subsequent to the accomplishment of

the initial basic task, any extensions of repeat

intervals specified in the Document must be

approved by the FAA.

(c) To accommodate unanticipated

scheduling requirements, it is acceptable for

a repeat interval to be increased by up to

10%, but not to exceed 6 months. The FAA

must be informed, in writing, of any such

extension within 30 days after such

adjustment of the schedule.

(d)(1) If, as a result of any inspection

conducted in accordance with paragraphs (a)

or (b) of this AD, Level 3 corrosion is

determined to exist in any airplane area,

accomplish either paragraph (d)(1)(i) or

(d)(1)(ii) within 7 days after such

determination:

(i) Submit a report of that determination to

the FAA and complete the basic task in the

affected aircraft zones on all Model YS–11/

–11A series airplanes in the operator’s fleet;

or

(ii) Submit to the FAA for approval one of

the following:

(A) A proposed schedule for performing

the basic tasks in the affected aircraft zones

on the remaining Model YS–11/–11A series

airplanes in the operator’s fleet, which is

adequate to ensure that any other Level 3

corrosion is detected in a timely manner,

along with substantiating data for that

schedule; or

(B) Data substantiating that the Level 3

corrosion found is an isolated occurrence.

Note 7: Notwithstanding the provisions of

section 1.3 of the Document, which would

permit corrosion that otherwise meets the

definition of Level 3 corrosion (i.e., which is

determined to be a potentially urgent

airworthiness concern requiring expeditious

action) to be treated as Level 1 if the operator

finds that it ‘‘can be attributed to an event not

typical of the operator’s usage of other

airplanes in the same fleet,’’ this paragraph

requires that data substantiating any such

finding be submitted to the FAA for

approval.

(2) The FAA may impose schedules other

than those proposed, upon finding that such

changes are necessary to ensure that any

other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a

timely manner.

(3) Within the time schedule approved

under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD,

accomplish the basic tasks in the affected

aircraft zones of the remaining Model YS–11/

–11A series airplanes in the operator’s fleet.

(e) If, as a result of any inspection after the

initial inspection conducted in accordance

with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this AD, it is

determined that corrosion findings exceed

Level 1 in any area, within 60 days after such

determination, implement a means, approved

by the FAA, to reduce future findings of

corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better.

(f) Before any operator places into service

any airplane subject to the requirements of

this AD, a schedule for the accomplishment

of basic tasks required by this AD must be

established in accordance with paragraph

(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable:

(1) For airplanes previously maintained in

accordance with this AD, the first basic task

in each aircraft zone to be performed by the

new operator must be accomplished in

accordance with the previous operator’s

schedule or with the new operator’s

schedule, whichever would result in the

earlier accomplishment date for that task.

After each basic task has been performed

once, each subsequent task must be

performed in accordance with the new

operator’s schedule.

(2) For airplanes that have not been

previously maintained in accordance with

this AD, the first basic task for each aircraft

zone to be performed by the new operator

must be accomplished prior to further flight

or in accordance with a schedule approved

by the FAA.

(g) Reports of Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion

must be submitted at least every three

months to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.,

in accordance with Section 3 of the

Document.

Note 8: Reporting of Level 2 and Level 3

corrosion found as a result of any

opportunity inspections is highly desirable.

(h) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time, which

provides an acceptable level of safety, may be

used when approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

the cognizant Maintenance Inspector at the

appropriate FAA Flight Standards office,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 9: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(i) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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.

(j) Reports of inspection results required by

this AD have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10,

1995.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9352 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–166–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model Viscount 744, 745D,

and 810 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

British Aerospace Model Viscount 744,

754D, and 810 airplanes. This proposal

would require an inspection to detect

corrosion of the tailplane assemblies,

and correction of discrepancies. This

proposal is prompted by a report of

corrosion on the main spar top and

bottom forward boom of the tailplane

assemblies and reports of cracking in

the upper root joint attachment fitting.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent such

cracking or corrosion of the main spar

forward booms or the upper root joint

attachment fitting, which consequently
19550 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

could lead to the failure of the tailplane

assemblies; this condition could result

in reduced controllability of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

166–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

94–NM–166–AD. This information may

be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

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–166–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–166–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority, which

is the airworthiness authority for the

United Kingdom, recently notified the

FAA that an unsafe condition may exist

on all British Aerospace Model Viscount

744, 754D, and 810 airplanes. The CAA

advises that it has received a report of

corrosion on the main spar top and

bottom forward boom of the tailplane

assemblies. Several incidents of

cracking have also been discovered in

the upper root joint attachment fitting.

The effects of such cracking or corrosion

could lead to the failure of the main

spar forward booms or the upper root

joint attachment fitting, which

consequently could lead to the failure of

the tailplane assemblies. This condition,

if not corrected, could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

British Aerospace has issued Viscount

Alert Preliminary Technical Leaflet

(PTL) 182, Issue 2, dated August 7, 1992

(for Model Viscount 810 airplanes); and

Viscount PTL 313, Issue 2, dated

February 1, 1993 (for Model Viscount

744, 754D, airplanes), which describe

procedures for performing an inspection

to detect corrosion of the tailplane

assemblies, and correction of

discrepancies. The CAA classified these

PTL’s as mandatory.

These airplane models are

manufactured in the United Kingdom

and are type certificated for operation in

the United States under the provisions

of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the CAA has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the CAA,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

an inspection to detect corrosion of the

tailplane assemblies, and correction of

discrepancies. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the PTL’s described

previously.

The FAA estimates that 29 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 160 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $278,400, or $9,600 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19551

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Limited

(Formerly British Aerospace

Commercial Aircraft Limited, VickersArmstrongs Aircraft Limited): Docket

94–NM–166–AD.

Applicability: All Model Viscount 744,

754D, and 810 airplanes, 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 (b) 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 cracking or corrosion of the

main spar forward booms or the upper root

joint attachment fitting, which consequently

could lead to the failure of the tailplane

assemblies and reduce the controllability of

the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 8 years of

service since date of manufacture of this

airplane, or within 18 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform an inspection to detect

corrosion of the tailplane assemblies, in

accordance with British Aerospace Regional

Aircraft Limited Viscount Alert Preliminary

Technical Leaflet (PTL) 182, Issue 2, dated

August 7, 1992 (for Model Viscount 810

airplanes), or Viscount PTL 313, Issue 2,

dated February 1, 1993 (for Model Viscount

744, 754D, airplanes), as applicable. If

corrosion is detected during the inspection,

prior to further flight, correct the

discrepancies in accordance with the service

bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at

intervals not to exceed 8 years.

(b) 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 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 April 13,

1995.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9624 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–112–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model Viscount 744, 745D,

and 810 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

British Aerospace Model Viscount 744,

745D, and 810 airplanes. This proposal

would require an inspection of certain

fittings of the engine mount structure to

determine whether fasteners have been

installed in inspection holes and to

determine whether those holes are

oversized. It would also require various

follow-on actions, depending upon the

results of the inspection. This proposal

is prompted by reports indicating that

fasteners were installed in the

inspection hole of the engine ‘‘W’’ frame

socket fittings and the inspection hole

was oversized due to fatigue cracking.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent such fatigue

cracking, which could lead to failure of

the fasteners and consequent separation

of the engine from the airframe.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

112–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

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Ltd.,

Engineering Support Manager, Military

Business Unit, Chadderton Works,

Greengate, Middleton, Manchester M24

1SA, England. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

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–112–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–112–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on certain British Aerospace