[Federal Register: January 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 19)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4257-4259]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja04-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003-NM-153-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-7-100 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise an existing airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to all Bombardier Model DHC-7-100 series
airplanes, that currently requires repetitive high frequency eddy
current inspections to detect cracks on the locking pin fittings of the
baggage door and locking pin housings of the fuselage; repetitive
detailed inspections to detect cracks of the inner door structure on
all four door locking attachment fittings; and corrective actions, if
necessary. In lieu of accomplishing the corrective actions, that
amendment also provides a temporary option, for certain cases, for
revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), and installing a placard.
That AD was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness
information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions
specified by that AD are intended to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the baggage door fittings and the support structure, which
could result in structural failure, and consequent rapid decompression
of the airplane during flight. This action would extend the compliance
time of the repetitive inspections based on test evidence and is
intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 1, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-153-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232.
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must
contain ``Docket No. 2003-NM-153-AD'' in the subject line and need not
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or
ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division,
123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. This
information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, New York.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lawson, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, New York 11590;
telephone (516) 228-7327; fax (516) 794-5531.
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 action may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example,
discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change
the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
For each issue, state what specific change to
the proposed AD is being requested.
Include justification (e.g., reasons or data)
for each request.
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 action must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 2003-NM-153-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-114, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 2003-NM-153-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On January 20, 2000, the FAA issued AD 2000-02-07, amendment 39-
11526 (65 FR 4354, January 27, 2000), applicable to all Bombardier
Model DHC-7-100 series airplanes, to require repetitive high frequency
eddy current inspections to detect cracks on the locking pin fittings
of the baggage door and locking pin housings of the fuselage;
repetitive detailed inspections to detect cracks of the inner door
structure on all four door locking attachment fittings; and corrective
actions, if necessary. In lieu of accomplishing the corrective actions,
that amendment also provides a temporary option, for certain cases, for
revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), and installing a placard.
That action was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing
airworthiness
[[Page 4258]]
information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The
requirements of that AD are intended to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the baggage door fittings and the support structure, which
could result in structural failure, and consequent rapid decompression
of the airplane during flight.
Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule
Since the issuance of that AD, Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA) issued Canadian airworthiness directive AD CF-1999-03R1, dated
August 22, 2001. That AD revised Canadian airworthiness directive AD
CF-1999-03, dated February 22, 1999, by increasing the repetitive
inspection interval of the baggage door stop fittings and the support
structure. The repetitive interval was increased based on test
evidence.
FAA's Conclusions
This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
Sec. 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the
applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the TCCA has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the TCCA, 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.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
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 revise AD 2000-02-07 to
continue to require repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections
to detect cracks on the locking pin fittings of the baggage door and
locking pin housings of the fuselage; repetitive detailed inspections
to detect cracks of the inner door structure on all four door locking
attachment fittings; and corrective actions, if necessary. In lieu of
accomplishing the corrective actions, this proposal also continues to
provide a temporary option, for certain cases, for revising the
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), and installing a placard. However, the
proposed AD would change the compliance interval for the repetitive
inspections from 1,000 flight cycles to 10,000 flight cycles.
Explanation of Change Made to Existing Requirements
The FAA has changed all references to a ``detailed visual
inspection'' in the existing AD to ``detailed inspection'' in this
proposed AD.
Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39
(67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness
directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to
altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of
compliance (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part
39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each
individual AD. However, for clarity and consistency in this proposed
AD, we have retained the language of the existing AD regarding that
material.
Cost Impact
The proposed changes in this action add no additional economic
burden. The current costs for this proposed AD are repeated for the
convenience of affected operators, as follows:
The FAA estimates that 32 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 3 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspections, and that the
average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$6,240, or $195 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The 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 cost impact figures
discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to
perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.
Regulatory Impact
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 proposal would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
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:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-11526 (65 FR
4354, January 27, 2000), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket 2003-NM-153-
AD. Revises AD 2000-02-07, Amendment 39-11526.
Applicability: All Model DHC-7-100 series 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 request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) 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 the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
[[Page 4259]]
To detect and correct fatigue cracking in the baggage door
fittings and the support structure, which could result in structural
failure, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane during
flight, accomplish the following:
Repetitive Inspections
(a) At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) of this AD, perform a high frequency eddy current
inspection to detect fatigue cracks of the locking pin fittings of
the baggage door and locking pin housings of the fuselage; and a
detailed inspection to detect fatigue cracks of the inner door
structure on all four locking attachment fittings of the baggage
door; in accordance with de Havilland Temporary Revision (TR) 5-101,
dated April 24, 2001, for Supplementary Inspection Task 52-1 to the
de Havilland Dash 7 Maintenance Manual PSM 1-7-2. Thereafter, repeat
the inspections at intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight cycles.
(1) Inspect prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total flight
cycles.
(2) Inspect within 600 flight cycles or 3 months after March 2,
2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-02-07, amendment 39-11526),
whichever occurs later.
Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage,
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate
access procedures may be required.''
Corrective Actions
(b) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this AD. For
operators that elect to accomplish the actions specified in
paragraph (c) of this AD: After accomplishment of the replacement
required by paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM) revision and placard required by paragraph (c)
of this AD may be removed.
(1) If a crack is detected in a baggage door locking pin fitting
or fuselage locking pin housing: Replace the fitting or housing with
a new fitting or housing, as applicable, in accordance with de
Havilland Dash 7 Maintenance Manual PSM 1-7-2.
(2) If a crack is detected in the inner baggage door structure
at the locking attachment fittings: Replace the structure with a new
support structure in accordance with de Havilland Dash 7 Maintenance
Manual PSM 1-7-2, or repair in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, or the Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (or its delegated agent). For a repair method to be
approved by the Manager, New York ACO, as required by this
paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference
this AD.
(c) For airplanes on which only one baggage door stop fitting or
its support structure is found cracked at one location, and on which
the pressurization system ``Dump'' function is operational: Prior to
further flight, accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this AD. Within 1,000 flight cycles after accomplishment
of the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD,
accomplish the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
AD, as applicable.
(1) Revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved DHC-7
AFM, PSM 1-71A-1A, to include the following statement. This AFM
revision may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the
AFM.
``Flight is restricted to unpressurized flight below 10,000 feet
mean sea level (MSL). The airplane must be operated in accordance
with DHC-7 AFM, PSM 1-71A-1A, Supplement 20.''
(2) Install a placard on the cabin pressure control panel or in
a prominent location that states the following:
``DO NOT PRESSURIZE THE AIRCRAFT UNPRESSURIZED FLIGHT PERMITTED
ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH DHC-7 AFM PSM 1-71A-1A, SUPPLEMENT 20 FLIGHT
ALTITUDE LIMITED TO 10,000 FEET MSL OR LESS.''
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(d) 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, New York ACO. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, New York ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York ACO.
Special Flight Permits
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
Sec.Sec. 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.
Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed in Canadian
airworthiness directive CF-99-03R1, dated August 22, 2001.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 20, 2004.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-1907 Filed 1-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P