Document ID: FAA-2008-0070-0008
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12, PC- 12/45, and PC-12/47 Airplanes
Posted Date: 2008-04-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 18433-18436]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04ap08-2]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0070; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-098-AD; 
Amendment 39-15452; AD 2008-07-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

 
Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12, PC-
12/45, and PC-12/47 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the 
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing 
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of 
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an 
aviation product. This AD requires inserting changes into the 
airworthiness limitations of the FAA-approved maintenance program. We 
are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition 
on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090.

[[Page 18434]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. 
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2008 (73 
FR 4497). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the 
specified products. The NPRM proposed to require incorporating new 
limitations into the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Pilatus 
PC-12 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 12-A/AMP-04. The revisions to 
the Airworthiness Limitations section of AMM 12-A/AMP-04 incorporate 
the following:
     Time between overhaul (TBO) for the pitch trim actuator is 
reduced from 6,000 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever occurs first, to 
5,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 5 years, whichever occurs first;
     The life limit for the pitch trim actuator is increased 
from 10,000 hours TIS or 13,500 flights, whichever occurs first, to 
20,000 hours TIS or 27,000 flights, whichever occurs first; and
     A life limit of 10,000 hours TIS is introduced for the 
pitch trim actuator attachment parts.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Comment Issue No. 1: Unable To Comply With AD

    Scott R. Lania of Alpha Flying Inc./Atlas Aircraft Center, Inc. and 
Tim Kitzmann state that incorporating limitations and making pen and 
ink changes to the airworthiness limitations section of the FAA-
approved maintenance manual are impractical and impossible.
    The commenters state that each affected airplane does not have its 
own maintenance manual, which makes compliance with paragraph (f) of 
the NPRM implausible. They state that most maintenance manuals for 
Pilatus PC-12 airplanes are now on compact disk (CD), which makes the 
pen and ink changes required in paragraph (f)(2) of the NPRM 
impossible.
    The commenters believe it would be easier to state the part numbers 
of the affected pitch trim actuators and their new TBO interval into 
the AD to address the unsafe condition.
    We partially agree with the commenters. We agree that making the 
pen and ink changes to the CD version of the FAA-approved maintenance 
manual would be impossible. However, we do not agree that incorporating 
just the part numbers of the affected pitch trim actuators and their 
new TBO interval into the AD addresses the unsafe condition. That 
approach could cause confusion with the latest version of the 
airworthiness limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance 
manual and would not follow the State of Design Authority's actions.
    To address this issue, we will allow using the CD version of the 
FAA-approved maintenance manual that incorporates the November 20, 
2007, version of chapter 4 and the corresponding version of chapter 5 
as an option for complying with the AD.
    In accordance with 14 CFR 21.50 and 23.1529, the holder of a design 
approval for which application was made after January 28, 1981, is 
required to include an Airworthiness Limitations section in their FAA-
approved maintenance manual or maintenance program (Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness). In this case, the manufacturer issued chapter 
4 to Pilatus PC-12 AMM 12-A/AMP-04, which is the Airworthiness 
Limitations section, and it must be incorporated into the airplane 
maintenance manual or maintenance program. This AD incorporates the 
November 20, 2007, version of these limitations.
    The only way for us to mandate a version of the airworthiness 
limitations section, other than what was in place at delivery of the 
airplane, is through rulemaking, e.g., AD.
    We will change the final rule AD action to incorporate the changes 
mentioned above.

Comment Issue No. 2: Change Compliance Time for TBO

    Scott R. Lania of Alpha Flying Inc./Atlas Aircraft Center, Inc. 
believes that the calendar time for the TBO interval is too early for 
low-time users. He suggests 8 to 10 years as a more realistic time for 
the 400- to 500-hour-a-year users. He believes this would be more in 
line with the high-time users.
    We do not agree. We have no data that allows us to deviate from the 
compliance time decision of both the type certificate (TC) holder and 
the State of Design Authority. The TC holder did not provide a 
conversion for the low-time users; therefore, we are relying on the 
compliance time decision of the TC holder and State of Design 
Authority. Owners/operators may request an alternative method of 
compliance (AMOC) following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19, and the AD. 
We will coordinate all requests with the TC holder and State of Design 
Authority.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 3: Request for Test Result Data

    Dan P. Johnson states that the reduction of the hourly limit for 
the TBO may be acceptable provided there is evidence supporting it. The 
proposed AD states: ``based on full-scale fatigue test, the life limit 
has been extended, but the TBO reduced.''
    The commenter requests to see the actual test results that prove a 
5-year calendar limit is warranted.
    The commenter notes that the current chapter 4 component entry for 
this actuator has no calendar limitation. These actuators are 
overhauled in the United States by Derco Repair Services, Inc. in 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The commenter states that he contacted this 
repair station last year for a quote to overhaul one of these and was 
quoted a price of around $4,500. The commenter states that he was also 
told that, due to a proprietary agreement with Pilatus, they would not 
accept direct requests for overhaul and only Pilatus could provide 
service. The commenter states that this is a common practice of Pilatus 
to control U.S. parts distribution.
    The commenter states that he understands the FAA does not get 
involved with costs incurred by operators. He also states that he 
understands the purpose of an AD is to detect and correct unsafe 
conditions and prevent them from happening in the future. The commenter 
believes that the FAA is assisting the TC holder in the ``gouging of 
American operators by agreeing to an unsubstantiated calendar limit.''
    The commenter believes that the hourly TBO reduction is sufficient 
for 14 CFR part 91 operators.
    We issued the NPRM based on full-scale fatigue tests conducted by 
the TC holder. The actual data is held by Pilatus, the European 
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the Federal Office of Civil Aviation 
(FOCA). We have no data to show that the State of Design Authority's 
determination of the life limits specified in the NPRM is not valid.
    We evaluated the State of Design Authority's information and 
determined that AD action was necessary in the United States to address 
an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on airplanes of 
the same type design that are type certificated for operation in the 
United States. The life limit of the component is being added to the 
Airworthiness Limitations section along with the TBO interval in order 
to

[[Page 18435]]

maintain the safe operation of this component.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 4: AD Unnecessary

    Tim Kitzmann questions why the AD is necessary if these new 
limitations are FAA-approved. The commenter points out that 14 CFR 
91.403(c) requires compliance with airworthiness limitations issued by 
the TC holder.
    The commenter believes that the AD is unnecessary since the new 
limitations are part of chapter 4.
    We do not agree with the commenter. While 14 CFR 91.403(c) requires 
compliance with FAA-approved limitations issued by the TC holder, the 
FAA's regulations do not require future incorporations of limitation 
section revisions, unless additional rulemaking action is taken, e.g., 
AD action. By taking AD action, we can mandate change to the 
airworthiness limitations section of an FAA-approved maintenance 
program for airplanes operating in both 14 CFR part 91 and part 135 
operations. If these new limitations are not mandated, the pitch trim 
actuator and the pitch trim actuator components could fail.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 5: Update Reference to the AMM

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. states that the reference to Pilatus PC-12 
AMM, Chapter 4 is not correct. Due to the implementation of a new 
software publication system, Pilatus requests for the AMM reference to 
be changed to Report No. 02049, issue 1, revision 0, dated November 20, 
2007.
    We partially agree with the commenter. In order to avoid confusion, 
we will incorporate the date of the new document. Based on the 
documents we have, we cannot change the way Pilatus PC-12 AMM, Chapter 
4 is referenced in this AD. However, to accommodate Pilatus' new 
software publication system, we will add a parenthetical to the Pilatus 
PC-12 AMM, Chapter 4 reference to include Report No. 02049, issue 1, 
revision 0.
    We will change the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these 
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This 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 required 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 500 products of U.S. 
registry. We also estimate that it will take about .5 work-hour per 
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average 
labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. 
operators to be $20,000, or $40 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions (the 
replacements required by the limitations changes) will take about 3.5 
work-hours and require parts costing $11,960, for a cost of $12,240 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 AD will not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (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) 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 AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

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 the NPRM, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-07-11 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Amendment 39-15452; Docket No. 
FAA-2008-0070; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-098-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 9, 
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

[[Page 18436]]

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight 
Controls.

Reason

    (e) This 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. We are issuing this AD to mandate new life limits for the 
pitch trim actuator and pitch trim actuator attachment parts. If 
these new limitations are not mandated, the pitch trim actuator and 
the pitch trim actuator components could fail. This failure could 
lead to an unsafe flying configuration.

Actions and Compliance

    Note 1: Pilatus has implemented a new software publication 
system. During the implementation of this new system, the airplane 
maintenance manual revision number was reset to 0. For the purposes 
of this AD, the date of issue takes prescedence over the revision 
level.

    (f) Unless already done, do the following within the next 30 
days after May 9, 2008 (the effective date of this AD).
    (1) Insert unclassified document 12-A/AMP-04, Structural, 
Component and Miscellaneous--Airworthiness Limitations, 12-A-04-00-
00-00A-000A-A, dated October 26, 2007 (Pilatus PC-12 Airplane 
Maintenance Manual, Chapter 4, Report No. 02049, Issue 1, Revision 
0, dated November 20, 2007), into the airworthiness limitations 
section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance 
manual) or use the CD version that incorporates the November 20, 
2007, version of chapter 4 and the corresponding version of chapter 
5. You may use any future amendment to this Airworthiness 
Limitations section provided it does not change the inspection 
intervals, requirements, or the life limits for the pitch trim 
actuator and pitch trim actuator attachment parts of the document 
referenced above. The owner/operator holding at least a private 
pilot certificate as authorized by 14 CFR 43.7 may do this action. 
Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this 
portion of the AD following 14 CFR 43.9.
    (2) In order to avoid confusion with the new pitch trim actuator 
limitations now contained in chapter 4 (previously contained in 
chapter 5), make pen and ink changes in chapter 5 and line through 
references to limitations for the pitch trim actuator. You do not 
have to make these pen and ink changes if you are using the CD 
version that incorporates the November 20, 2007, version of chapter 
4 and the corresponding version of chapter 5.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small 
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090. 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.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 27, 2008.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-6958 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P