48310 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0891; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–CE–046–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air 

Limited DHC–6 Series 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 the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

Three instances have occurred in which 

the aircraft took off with pre-mod 6/1676 

flight control gust locks still installed, 

sometimes with disastrous results. 

Based on preliminary investigation, the 

FAA and National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) believe that an attempted 

takeoff with the gust locks installed 

could be the cause of a recent accident 

in Hyannis, Massachusetts. The 

proposed AD would require actions that 

are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 18, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• 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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket 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 AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, New York Certification Office, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: 

(516) 228–7303; fax: (516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0891; Directorate Identifier 

2008–CE–046–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because 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 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada, which is the 

aviation authority for Canada, has 

issued AD No. CF–90–01, dated January 

31, 1990 (referred to after this as ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for the specified products. The MCAI 

states: 

Three instances have occurred in which 

the aircraft took off with pre-mod 6/1676 

flight control gust locks still installed, 

sometimes with disastrous results. 

To minimize the possibility of an 

attempted take-off with the gust locks 

inadvertently installed, and to reduce the 

possibility of the aircraft becoming airborne 

should such a take-off be attempted, 

accomplish the following: 

1. Incorporate de Havilland Modification 

6/1676 which ensures downward deflection 

of the elevators when the control locks are 

engaged. 

2. Incorporate de Havilland Modification 

6/1726 to add to the control lock a warning 

flag which masks essential flight instruments 

on the pilot’s instrument panel. 

3. The modifications in paragraphs 1 and 

2 above are to be accomplished in accordance 

with de Havilland Service Bulletin 6/508 

dated 15 December 1989, or later revisions 

approved by the Director, Airworthiness 

Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa. 

Based on preliminary investigation, the 

FAA and NTSB believe that an 

attempted takeoff with the gust locks 

installed could be the cause of a recent 

accident in Hyannis, Massachusetts. 

Relevant Service Information 

Boeing Canada de Havilland Division 

issued Service Bulletin No. 6/508, 

Revision ‘‘A’’, dated January 31, 1990. 

The actions described in this service 

information are intended to correct the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with this State of 

Design Authority, they have notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a NOTE within the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

will affect 42 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 6 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $80 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $1,125 per 

product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48311 

operators to be $67,410, or $1,605 per 

product. 

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 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 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. 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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, 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: 

Viking Air Limited: Docket No. FAA–2008–

0891; Directorate Identifier 2008–CE–

046–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

September 18, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Models DHC–6–1, 

DHC–6–100, DHC–6–200, and DHC–6–300 

airplanes, serial numbers (SNs) 1 through 

696, that 

(1) have not had modifications 6/1676 and 

6/1726 installed; and 

(2) are certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Three instances have occurred in which 

the aircraft took off with pre-mod 6/1676 

flight control gust locks still installed, 

sometimes with disastrous results. 

To minimize the possibility of an 

attempted take-off with the gust locks 

inadvertently installed, and to reduce the 

possibility of the aircraft becoming airborne 

should such a take-off be attempted, 

accomplish the following: 

1. Incorporate de Havilland Modification 

6/1676 which ensures downward deflection 

of the elevators when the control locks are 

engaged. 

2. Incorporate de Havilland Modification 

6/1726 to add to the control lock a warning 

flag which masks essential flight instruments 

on the pilot’s instrument panel. 

3. The modifications in paragraphs 1 and 

2 above are to be accomplished in accordance 

with de Havilland Service Bulletin 6/508 

dated 15 December 1989, or later revisions 

approved by the Director, Airworthiness 

Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa. 

Based on preliminary investigation, the FAA 

and National Transportation Safety Board 

believe that an attempted takeoff with the 

gust locks installed could be the cause of a 

recent accident in Hyannis, Massachusetts. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, within 6 calendar 

months after the effective date of this AD, do 

the following actions using Boeing Canada de 

Havilland Division Service Bulletin No. 

6/508, Revision ‘‘A’’, dated January 31, 1990: 

(1) Incorporate de Havilland Modification 

6/1676, which assures downward deflection 

of the elevators when the control locks are 

engaged. 

(2) Incorporate de Havilland Modification 

6/1726, which adds to the control lock a 

warning flag which masks essential flight 

instruments on the pilot’s instrument panel. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) 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: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, New York Certification Office, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New 

York 11590; telephone: (516) 228–7303; fax: 

(516) 794–5531. 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 

(h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD 

No. CF–90–01, dated January 31, 1990; and 

Boeing Canada de Havilland Division Service 

Bulletin No. 6/508, Revision ‘‘A’’, dated 

January 31, 1990, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

12, 2008. 

G. Wes Ryan, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–19165 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS