[Federal Register: April 16, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18571-18575]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap03-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Robert E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1
Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Reopening of
the comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise an earlier proposed
airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain Robert E. Rust
(R.E. Rust) Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A
airplanes. The earlier NPRM would have required you to repetitively
inspect the tailplane attachment brackets and replace each bracket. The
earlier NPRM would have also required you to repetitively inspect each
joint of the port and starboard engine mount frame and the rear upper
mount frame tubes for cracks and/or damage and repair any cracks and/or
damage found. The earlier NPRM resulted from reports of stress
corrosion cracking found on the tailplane attachment brackets and
fatigue cracking and chaffing of the engine mount frame. We incorrectly
referenced replacing the tailplane attachment brackets (part number
C1.TP.167) upon accumulating 9,984 hours time-in-service (TIS). The
hour limitation should be 9,984 fatigue hours. Fatigue hours are hours
TIS multiplied by the role factor (operational use) as defined in the
manufacturer's service information. This proposed supplemental NPRM
also adds an hour limitation for performing the repetitive inspection
of the tailplane 1 attachment brackets. Since these actions impose an
additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
additional actions.
DATES: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive any
comments on this proposed rule on or before June 23, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-CE-64-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 also send comments
electronically to the following address: 9-ACE-7-Docket@faa.gov.
Comments sent electronically must contain ``Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD''
in the subject line. If you send comments electronically as attached
electronic files, the files must be formatted in Microsoft Work 97 for
Windows or ASCII text.
You may get service information that applies to this proposed AD
from DeHavilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, Bldg. 213,
Cambridgeshire, CB2 4QR, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 1223 830090,
facsimile: +44 1223 830085, e-mail: info@dhsupport.com. You may also
view this information at the Rules Docket at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lorenzen, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard,
Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; telephone: (770) 703-6078; facsimile:
(770) 703-6097.
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
[[Page 18572]]
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 mailed comments,
you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard,
write ``Comments to Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD.'' We will date stamp and
mail the postcard back to you.
Discussion
What Events Have Caused Us To Issue the Earlier NPRM?
We received reports that an unsafe condition exists on certain R.E.
Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A airplanes. After
reviewing several of these airplanes, stress corrosion cracking was
found on the tailplane attachment brackets and fatigue cracks and
chaffing were found on the engine mount frame.
Cracks in the engine mount frame were found in the area of the
junction of the front and rear top tube and engine mounting foot
support brackets and in the front of the frame. We have determined that
fatigue is the cause of the cracks. The upper aft mount frame tubes
were also found to have damage caused by chaffing by the cowling
support rod.
What Are the Consequences if the Condition Is Not Corrected?
These conditions, if not corrected, could result in failure of the
tailplane attachment brackets and failure of the engine mount. Such
failures could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
Has FAA Taken Any Action to This Point?
We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to
certain R.E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A
airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 12, 2002 (67 FR
68536). The NPRM proposed to require you to repetitively inspect the
tailplane attachment brackets and replace each bracket. The NPRM also
proposed to require you to repetitively inspect each joint of the port
and starboard engine mount frame and the rear upper mount frame tubes
for cracks and/or damage and repair any cracks and/or damage found.
Was the Public Invited To Comment?
The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making
of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the
proposal and FAA's response to each comment:
Comment Issue No. 1: Change the Compliance Time for Replacing the
Tailplane Attachment Brackets
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
The commenter states that replacement parts for the tailplane
attachment brackets may not be available from the manufacturer within
90 days after the effective date of this AD. Therefore, the commenter
suggests allowing more time to acquire parts by changing the compliance
time for replacing the tailplane attachment brackets if cracks are
found during the initial inspection from 90 days to 12 months after the
effective date of this AD.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The commenter does not offer any solution to ensure the
airworthiness of the airplanes until the parts become available. We
cannot increase the compliance time unless other means to ensure the
continued airworthiness of these airplanes are substantiated.
We will consider an alternative method of compliance if the
alternative provides an equivalent level of safety as outlined in
paragraph (e) of this AD.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 2: Change the Compliance Time for the Repetitive
Inspections of the Tailplane Attachment Brackets
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
The commenter suggests that the repetitive inspections of the
tailplane attachment brackets should be changed to every 150 fatigue
hour or 6 months, whichever comes first, in order to ensure the
airworthiness of these airplanes. The NPRM only proposed inspections
every 6 months.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We concur with the commenter. Requiring repetitive inspections at
every 150 fatigue hours or 6 months, whichever comes first, will ensure
that the unsafe condition will not go undetected on high usage
airplanes for a long period of time and will ensure the airworthiness
of the affected airplanes.
We will make this change. Fatigue hours are hours TIS multiplied by
the role factor (operational use) as specified in British Aerospace
Mandatory Technical News Sheet Series: Chipmunk (C1), No. 138, Issue:
5, dated August 1, 1985. Because adding the fatigue hours requirement
to the repetitive inspection compliance time could increase the burden
upon the public, we will reopen the comment period and issue a
supplemental NPRM.
Comment Issue No. 3: Remove the Grace Period Allowed Beyond the Safe
Life Limit for Replacing the Tailplane Attachment Brackets
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
The commenter states that the ultimate safe life limit of 9,984
fatigue hours for part number C1.TP.167 is a never exceed life and
cannot be extended. Once an airplane has reached this safe life limit,
the tailplane attachment bracket must be replaced before further
flight.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We concur that a life limit is a never exceed limit. However, the
safe life limit for the tailplane attachment bracket has not previously
been established and enforced for the owners/operators of the affected
airplanes. The life limit was not part of the type certificate data and
was not previously mandated by an AD. Part of this proposed AD is
establishing the safe life limit for this part. Removing the 90 day
grace period for these airplanes already over or nearing 9,984 fatigue
hours on the tailplane attachment bracket could inadvertently ground
these airplanes when the AD becomes effective.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
The Supplemental NPRM
What Events Have Caused FAA To Issue a Supplemental NPRM?
In addition to adding the fatigue hour requirement to the
repetitive inspection compliance time, we are correcting reference to
the life limit as 9,984 fatigue hours instead of 9,984 hours TIS.
Fatigue hours are hours TIS multiplied by the role factor (operational
use).
How Will the Changes to the NPRM Impact the Public?
Proposing to change the intervals for performing the repetitive
inspections of the tailplane attachment brackets to include an hour
limitation and changing hours TIS to fatigue hours go beyond the scope
of what was already proposed. Therefore, we are issuing a supplemental
NPRM and reopening the comment period to allow the public additional
time to comment on the proposed AD.
[[Page 18573]]
How Does the Revision to 14 CFR Part 39 Affect This Proposed AD?
On July 10, 2002, FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67
FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This
regulation now includes material that relate to special flight permits,
alternative methods of compliance, and altered products. This material
previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is
included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD
actions.
Cost Impact
How Many Airplanes Would This Proposed AD Impact?
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 54 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 the proposed
inspections of the tailplane attachment brackets:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost Total cost
Labor cost Parts cost per on U.S.
airplane operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 workhours x $60 per hour = No parts $1,920 $1,920 x 54
$1,920. required. = $103,680.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
airplanes that may need such replacement:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Labor cost Parts cost per
airplane
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 workhours x $60 per hour = $180 $600 per bracket (2 $180 + $600
per bracket. brackets per = $780.
airplane).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed
inspections of the engine mount frame:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost Total cost
Labor cost Parts cost per on U.S.
airplane operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 workhours x $60 per hour = No parts $960 $960 x 54 =
$960. required. $51,840.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has no method of determining the number of repairs or
replacements each owner/operator would incur over the life of each of
the affected airplanes based on the results of the proposed
inspections. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that
may need such repair. The extent of damage may vary on each airplane.
Compliance Time of This Proposed AD
What Would Be the Compliance Time of This Proposed AD?
The compliance time for the initial inspection proposed in this AD
is ``within the next 90 days after the effective date of this AD.''
Why Is the Proposed Compliance Time Presented in Calendar Time Instead
of Hours Time-in-Service (TIS)?
An unsafe condition specified by this proposed AD is caused by
corrosion. Corrosion can occur regardless of whether the aircraft is in
operation or is in storage. Therefore, to assure that the unsafe
condition specified in the proposed AD does not go undetected for a
long period of time, the compliance is presented in calendar time
instead of TIS.
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 proposed
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 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
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
[[Page 18574]]
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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
Robert E. Rust: Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD
(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? This AD affects R.E.
Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A airplanes,
serial numbers C1-001 through C1-1014, that are type certificated in
any category.
Note 1: We recommend all owners/operators of DeHavilland DH.C1
Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A airplanes, serial numbers C1-001 through
C1-1014, with experimental airworthiness certificates comply with
the actions required in this AD.
(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 prevent failure of the tailplane attachment
brackets caused by stress corrosion cracking and failure of the
engine mount, which could result in loss of the tail section and
separation of the engine from the airplane respectively. Such
failures could lead to 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:
(1) Tailplane Attachment Brackets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Actions Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Initially inspect within the Inspect, using In accordance
next 90 days after the effective dye penetrant, with British
date of this AD. the tailplane Aerospace
(A) Inspect thereafter at intervals attachment Military
not to exceed 6 months or 150 brackets, part- Aircraft and
fatigue hours, whichever occurs number (P/N) Aerostructures
first, until the modification C1.TP.167 (or (BAe Aircraft)
required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) FAA-approved Mandatory
of this AD is incorporated. equivalent part) Technical News
(B) When the modification required for cracks. Sheet CT (C1)
by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is No. 176, Issue
incorporated, you may terminate 2, dated
the repetitive inspections of the November 1,
tailplane attachment brackets. 1997; and Civil
Modification
Mandatory
Modification
No. Chipmunk
H357, dated
March 12, 1984.
Calculate
fatigue hours
by multiplying
the TIS by the
role factor in
accordance with
British
Aerospace
Mandatory
Technical News
Sheet Series:
Chipmunk (C1),
No. 138, Issue:
5, dated August
1, 1985.
------------------------------------
(ii) At whichever of the following Replace the In accordance
that occurs first: tailplane with British
(A) Prior to further flight after attachment Aerospace
the inspection where any crack is bracket by Military
found; or incorporating Aircraft and
(B) Upon accumulating 9,984 fatigue Modification Aerostructures
hours or within the next 90 days H357 (P/N (BAe Aircraft)
after the effective date of this C1.TP.313) or Mandatory
AD, whichever occurs later FAA-approved Technical News
equivalent part Sheet CT (C1)
number. No. 176, Issue
Installing P/N 2, dated
C1.TP.313 (or November 1,
FAA-approved 1997; and Civil
equivalent part Modification
number) Mandatory
terminates the Modification
repetitive No. Chipmunk
inspection H357, dated
requirement of March 12, 1984.
the tailplane Calculate
attachment fatigue hours
brackets. by multiplying
the TIS by the
role factor in
accordance with
British
Aerospace
Mandatory
Technical News
Sheet Series:
Chipmunk (C1),
No. 138, Issue:
5, dated August
1, 1985.
(iii) As of the effective date of Only install a Not applicable.
this AD tailplane
attachment
bracket that is
P/N C1.TP.313.
or FAA-approved
equivalent part
number.
(iv) As of the effective date of Incorporate the In accordance
this AD following into with British
the Aircraft Aerospace
Logbook: ``In Military
accordance with Aircraft and
AD **-**-**, the Aerostructures
tailplane (BAe Aircraft)
attachment Mandatory
bracket is life Technical News
limited to 9,984 Sheet CT (C1)
fatigue hours.''. No. 176, Issue
2, dated
November 1,
1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Engine Mount Frames
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Compliance Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Inspect each joint of the Initially inspect In accordance with
port and starboard engine mount within the next British Aerospace
frame and the rear upper mount 90 days after the Aerostructures
frame tubes for cracks and/or effective date of Limited (BAe
damage. this AD. Aircraft)
Repetitively Mandatory
inspect Technical News
thereafter at Sheet CT (C1) No.
intervals not to 190, Issue 2,
exceed 600 hours dated April 1,
TIS. 1995.
---------------------------------
[[Page 18575]]
(ii) If cracks and/or damage is Prior to further Repair in
found during any inspection flight after the accordance with
required in paragraph (d)(2)(i) inspection in AC 43.13-1B,
of this AD. which any crack Change 1, dated
(A) obtain a repair scheme from and/or damage is September 27,
the manufacturer through the found. 2001, Chapter 4,
FAA at the address specified in Repetitively Paragraph 4-99 or
paragraph (f) of this AD and inspect as in accordance
incorporate this repair scheme, required in with the repair
or repair in accordance with paragraph scheme obtained
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) (d)(2)(i) of this from DeHavilland
43.13-1B, Change 1, dated AD. Support Limited,
September 27, 2001, Chapter 4, Duxford Airfield,
Paragraph 4-99; or. Bldg. 213,
(B) replace with a new or Cambridgeshire,
serviceable part. CB2 4QR, United
Kingdom. Obtain
this repair
scheme through
the FAA at the
address specified
in paragraph (f)
of this AD.
Replace in
accordance with
British Aerospace
Aerostructures
Limited (BAe
Aircraft)
Mandatory
Technical News
Sheet CT (C1) No.
190, Issue 2,
dated April 1,
1995, or AC 43.13-
1B, Change 1,
dated September
27, 2001, Chapter
4, Paragraph 4-
99.
---------------------------------
(iii) Bind the rear upper mount Prior to further In accordance with
frame tubes with a high density flight after the British Aerospace
polythene tape at the location initial Aerostructures
where the cowling support rod inspection Limited (BAe
clip is secured. required in Aircraft)
paragraph (d)(1) Mandatory
of this AD. Technical News
Sheet CT (C1) No.
190, Issue 2,
dated April 1,
1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other way? To use an
alternative method of compliance or adjust the compliance time,
follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.13. Send these requests to the
Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). Contact Cindy
Lorenzen, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia;
telephone: (770) 703-6078; facsimile: (770) 703-6097.
(f) How do I get copies of the documents referenced in this AD?
You may get copies of the documents referenced in this AD from
DeHavilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, Bldg. 213,
Cambridgeshire, CB2 4QR, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 1223 830090,
facsimile: +44 1223 830085, e-mail: info@dhsupport.com. 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 April 10, 2003.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-9304 Filed 4-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P