64928 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

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

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

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 you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Al Phillips, Aerospace

Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification

Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4116; facsimile: (316)

946–4407.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may get copies of

the documents referenced in this AD from

Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support,

P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277. You

may view these documents at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 6, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–30954 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–CE–41–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA—

Groupe Aerospatiale Models MS 892A–

150, MS 892E–150, MS 893A, MS 893E,

MS 894A, MS 894E, Rallye 150T, and

Rallye 150ST Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

77–15–06, which applies to all

SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale (Socata)

Models MS 892A–150, MS 892E–150,

MS 893A, MS 893E, Rallye 150T, and

Rallye 150ST airplanes. AD 77–15–06

currently requires you to repetitively

inspect the engine mount assembly for

cracks, repair any cracks found, and

modify the brackets on airplanes with

right angle engine mounts. This

proposed AD is the result of the French

airworthiness authority’s determination

that updated service information and

additional aircraft should be added to

the applicability of AD 77–15–06. This

proposed AD would retain the

inspection and repair requirements of

the current AD and would add the

information communicated by the

French airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by this proposed AD

are intended to detect and correct cracks

in the engine mount assembly. Such a

condition could cause the engine mount

assembly to fail, which could result in

loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this rule on or before

January 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2001–CE–41–AD, 901 Locust, Room

506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You

may view any comments at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

You may get service information that

applies to this proposed AD from

SOCATA Groupe Aerospatiale,

Customer Support, Aerodrome TarbesOssun-Lourdes, BP 930—F65009 Tarbes

Cedex, France; telephone: 011 33 5 62

41 73 00; facsimile: 011 33 5 62 41 76

54; or the Product Support Manager,

SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale, North

Perry Airport, 7501 Pembroke Road,

Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023;

telephone: (954) 894–1160; facsimile:

(954) 964–4191. You may also view this

information at the Rules Docket at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl

Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 329–4146; facsimile:

(816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on this proposed

AD? The FAA invites comments on this

proposed rule. You may submit

whatever written data, views, or

arguments you choose. You need to

include the rule’s docket number and

submit your comments to the address

specified under the caption ADDRESSES.

We will consider all comments received

on or before the closing date. We may

amend this proposed rule in light of

comments received. Factual information

that supports your ideas and suggestions

is extremely helpful in evaluating the

effectiveness of this proposed AD action

and determining whether we need to

take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of this

proposed AD I should pay attention to?

The FAA specifically invites comments

on the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

this proposed rule that might suggest a

need to modify the rule. You may view

all comments we receive before and

after the closing date of the rule in the

Rules Docket. We will file a report in

the Rules Docket that summarizes each

contact we have with the public that

concerns the substantive parts of this

proposed AD.

How can I be sure FAA receives my

comment? If you want FAA to

acknowledge the receipt of your

comments, you must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. On the

postcard, write ‘‘Comments to Docket

No. 2001–CE–41–AD.’’ We will date

stamp and mail the postcard back to

you.

Discussion

Has FAA taken any action to this

point? Fatigue cracks found on the

engine mount assemblies of Socata

Models MS 892A–150, MS 892E–150,

MS 893A, MS 893E, Rallye 150T, and

Rallye 150ST airplanes caused us to

issue AD 77–15–06, Amendment 39–

2975. This AD currently requires the

following:

—Inspecting the engine mount assembly

for cracks at repetitive intervals;

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 64929

—Repairing any cracks found; and

—Modifying the brackets on airplanes

with right angle engine mounts.

What has happened since AD 77–15–

06 to initiate this action? The Direction

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC),

which is the airworthiness authority for

France, recently notified FAA of the

need to change AD 77–15–06. The

DGAC reports that:

—The manufacturer has issued new

service information to address the

unsafe condition;

—Additional airplane models should be

added to the applicability; and

—The initial compliance time should be

changed from 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) to 50 hours TIS.

Is there service information that

applies to this subject? Socata has

issued Service Bulletin SB 156–17,

dated May 2001.

What are the provisions of this service

bulletin? The service bulletin includes

procedures for:

—Repetitively inspecting certain engine

mount assemblies for cracks; and

—Repairing cracks that are a certain

length.

What action did the DGAC take? The

DGAC classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued French AD 2001–

400(A), dated September 19, 2001, in

order to ensure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

Was this in accordance with the

bilateral airworthiness agreement?

These airplane models are

manufactured in France 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, DGAC has

kept FAA informed of the situation

described above.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What has FAA decided? The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC;

reviewed all available information,

including the service information

referenced above; and determined that:

—The unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on certain Socata Models MS 892A–

150, MS 892E–150, MS 893A, MS

893E, MS 894A, MS 894E, Rallye

150T, and Rallye 150ST airplanes of

the same type design that are on the

U.S. registry;

—The actions specified in the

previously-referenced service

information should be accomplished

on the affected airplanes; and

—AD action should be taken in order to

correct this unsafe condition.

What would the proposed AD require?

This proposed AD would supersede AD

77–15–06 with a new AD that would

require you to:

—Repetitively inspect any engine

mount assembly that is not part

number 892–51–0–035–0 (or FAAapproved equivalent part number) for

cracks;

—Repair cracks that do not exceed a

certain length; and

—Replace the engine mount when the

cracks exceed a certain length and

cracks are found on an engine mount

that already has two repairs.

Cost Impact

How many airplanes would the

proposed AD impact? We estimate that

the proposed AD affects 81 airplanes in

the U.S. registry.

What would be the cost impact of this

proposed AD on owners/operators of the

affected airplanes? We estimate the

following costs to accomplish each

proposed inspection(s):

Labor cost Parts cost

Total cost

per airplane

Total cost on U.S.

operators

1 workhour × $60=$60 ................................................ No parts required ........................................................ $60 $60 × 81=$4,860

We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results

of the proposed inspection(s). We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need such repair:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

3 workhours × $60=$180 .................................................. No parts required ............................................................ $180

We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary replacements that would be required based on the

results of the proposed inspection(s). We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need such

replacement:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

9 workhours × $60=$540 ............................................................................................................... $3,500 $540 + $3,500=$4,040

Regulatory Impact

Would this proposed AD impact

various entities? The regulations

proposed herein 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. Therefore, it is

determined that this proposed rule

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

Would this proposed AD involve a

significant rule or regulatory action? For

the reasons discussed above, I certify

that this action (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under 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 has been placed

in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may

be obtained by contacting the Rules

64930 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed 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, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations 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. FAA amends Section 39.13 by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

77–15–06, Amendment 39-2975, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale: Docket No.

2001-CE–41–AD; Supersedes AD 77–15–

06, Amendment 39–2975.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD affects the following airplane

models and serial numbers that are

certificated in any category and do not have

a part number 892–51–0–035–0 engine

mount assembly (or FAA-approved

equivalent part number) installed:

Model Serial Nos.

MS 892A–

150

All serial numbers.

MS 892E–

150

All serial numbers.

MS 893A All serial numbers.

Model Serial Nos.

MS 893E All serial numbers.

MS 894A 1005 through 2204 equipped

with kit OPT8098 9037.

MS 894E 1005 through 2204 equipped

with kit OPT8098 9037.

Rallye 150T All serial numbers.

Rallye 150ST All serial numbers.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct cracks in the engine

mount assembly. Such a condition could

cause the engine mount assembly to fail,

which could result in loss of control of the

airplane.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Actions Compliance Procedures

(1) Inspect the engine mount assembly for

cracks.

For airplanes previously affected by AD 77–

15–06: inspect or within the next 50 hours

time-in-service (TIS) after the last inspection

required by AD 77–15–06 or within the next

50 hours TIS after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS. For all

other airplanes: inspect within the next 50

hours TIS after the effective date of this AD

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50

hours TIS.

In accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions section of Socata Service Bulletin

SB 156–71, dated May 2001.

(2) If any crack is found during any inspection

required by this AD that is less than 0.24

inches (6 mm) in length, repair the engine

mount assembly. If two repairs on the engine

mount have already been performed, replace

in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this

AD.

Prior to further flight after the inspection in

which the crack is found.

In accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions section of Socata Service Bulletin

SB 156–71, dated May 2001.

(3) If any crack is found during any inspection

required by this AD that is 0.24 inches (6

mm) or longer in length or if any crack is

found and two repairs on the engine mount

have already been performed, replace the

engine mount assembly with part number

892–51–0–035–0 (or FAA-approved equivalent part number).

Prior to further flight after the inspection in

which the crack is found. Repetitive inspections are no longer required after this replacement.

In accordance with the applicable maintenance manual.

(4) You may terminate the repetitive inspections of this AD after installing engine mount

assembly, part number 892–51–0–035–0 (or

FAA-approved equivalent part number).

At any time but it must be done prior to further flight if any of the criteria of paragraph

(d)(3) are met.

In accordance with the applicable maintenance manual.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way?

(1) You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(i) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(ii) The Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, approves your alternative.

Submit your request through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 77–15–06,

which is superseded by this AD, are not

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

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

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

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 you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Karl Schletzbaum,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 64931

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4146; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Customer

Support, Aerodrome Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes,

BP 930—F65009 Tarbes Cedex, France;

telephone: 011 33 5 62 41 73 00; facsimile:

011 33 5 62 41 76 54; or the Product Support

Manager, SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE,

North Perry Airport, 7501 Pembroke Road,

Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone:

(954) 894–1160; facsimile: (954) 964–4191.

You may examine these documents at FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(i) Does this AD action affect any existing

AD actions? This amendment supersedes AD

77–15–06, Amendment 39–2975.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French AD 2001–400(A), dated September

19, 2001.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 6, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–30953 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–SW–39–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD

Helicopters Inc. Model MD–900

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes

superseding an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) for MD Helicopters Inc.

Model MD–900 helicopters. That AD

currently requires inspecting the main

rotor upper hub assembly drive plate

attachment flange (flange), determining

the torque of each flange nut (nut), and

if a crack is found, before further flight,

replacing the hub assembly. In addition

to the current requirements, this action

would require visually inspecting the

outer surface of the flange at specified

intervals and removing the drive plate

and visually inspecting the flange for a

crack at specified intervals and

replacing any unairworthy hub

assembly. This proposal is prompted by

reports that cracks starting at the drive

plate attachment holes were found in

the main rotor hub. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect a crack in the flange

and to prevent failure of the hub

assembly, loss of drive to the main rotor,

and subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–SW–

39–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may

also send comments electronically to

the Rules Docket at the following

address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.

Comments may be inspected at the

Office of the Regional Counsel between

9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon

Mowery, Aviation Safety Engineer,

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Airframe Branch, 3960

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California

90712, telephone (562) 627–5322, fax

(562) 627–5210.

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

should 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, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this document 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 mailed

comments submitted in response to this

proposal must submit a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2001–SW–

39–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, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2001–SW–39–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On December 17, 1999, the FAA

issued Emergency AD 99–26–20 to

require certain inspections of the hub

assembly for a crack, ensuring the

correct torque of each nut, and replacing

any cracked hub assembly with an

airworthy hub assembly. That action

was prompted by three occurrences of

cracked hub assemblies. The FAA

discovered errors after issuing

Emergency AD 99–26–20 and corrected

those errors by superseding that

Emergency AD with AD 2001–07–09,

Amendment 39–12175 (66 FR 19383,

April 16, 2001). The requirements of

that AD were intended to prevent failure

of the hub assembly, loss of drive to the

main rotor, and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has received reports indicating that

additional cracks have been found in

the main rotor hub emanating from the

drive plate attachment holes.

This unsafe condition is likely to exist

or develop on other MD Helicopters Inc.

Model MD–900 helicopters of the same

type design. Therefore, the proposed AD

would supersede AD 2001–07–09 to

contain the current requirements and to

also require the following:

• Visually inspect the outer surface of

the flange using a light and a 10x or

higher magnifying glass at intervals not

to exceed 100 hours TIS.

• Remove the drive plate and visually

inspect the flange for a crack at intervals

not to exceed 300 hours TIS.

• Replace any unairworthy hub

assembly before further flight.

The FAA estimates 28 helicopters of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take

approximately 1 work hour per

helicopter to verify the torque, 3 work

hours per helicopter to perform the

inspection, and 10 work hours per

helicopter to replace the hub assembly,