[Federal Register: November 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 210)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65827-65832]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no05-1]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 65827]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 98-NM-300-AD; Amendment 39-14355; AD 2005-22-11]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Model YS-11 Airplanes, and
Model YS-11A-200, YS-11A-300, YS-11A-500, and YS-11A-600 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Mitsubishi Model YS-11 airplanes, and Model YS-
11A-200, YS-11A-300, YS-11A-500, and YS-11A-600 series airplanes. This
AD requires repetitive removal of the spinner; repetitive detailed
inspections of the propeller hub to detect fatigue cracking; and
replacement of a propeller hub with a new propeller hub, if necessary.
This action is necessary to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
propeller hub, which could cause the loss of the propeller. This action
is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective December 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Nihon Aeroplane Manufacturing, Toranomon Daiichi,
Kotohire-Cho, Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan. This information may be
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Bandley, Project Engineer,
Continuing Operational Safety, ANM-100L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5237; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Mitsubishi Model YS-11 and YS-
11A series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August
31, 1999 (64 FR 47442). That action proposed to require repetitive
removal of the spinner; repetitive detailed visual inspections of the
propeller hub to detect fatigue cracking; and replacement of a
propeller hub with a new propeller hub, if necessary.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Request To Include Only Airplanes With Incorrectly Inspected Propeller
Hubs
Two commenters, the airplane manufacturer and the Japan Civil
Aviation Bureau (JCAB), which is the airworthiness authority for Japan,
request that we limit the airplanes affected by the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to those that have propeller hubs that were inspected
incorrectly. The commenters explain that, after we issued the NPRM,
which applies to all Mitsubishi Model YS-11 and YS-11A series
airplanes, the JCAB found some discrepancies in procedures that an
overhauler used when inspecting the hub. The JCAB revised its
airworthiness directive and issued Japanese airworthiness directive
TCD-4667A-98, dated March 18, 1998, to apply only to the hubs that were
inspected incorrectly. The commenters request that we incorporate the
list of applicable propellers into the final rule.
We infer that the commenters are also stating that hubs that were
correctly inspected are not subject to the stated unsafe condition. We
agree with the commenters; only propeller hubs that were incorrectly
inspected are subject to the unsafe condition. Therefore, the final
rule should be applicable only to airplanes on which these incorrectly
inspected propeller hubs are installed. The Japanese airworthiness
directive identifies the affected propellers by serial number. We have
revised the summary and applicability of the final rule to reflect this
change and to include only those serial numbers.
Request To Exclude Airplanes With Strengthened Propeller Hubs
The same commenters request that we exclude from the applicability
any affected airplane that has a propeller hub that was strengthened in
accordance with Dowty Rotol Service Bulletin 61-921, dated April 24,
1980, or later version approved by the JCAB. The commenters state that
strengthened hubs do not require a repetitive visual inspection. The
Japanese airworthiness directive excludes from its applicability all
airplanes that have strengthened hubs; however, JCAB also notes in its
comment that there have been two reports of cracks in strengthened
hubs. In addition, the commenters request that we incorporate the
actions in this service bulletin into the requirements of the final
rule.
We do not agree with the commenters. The JCAB noted that there have
been two reports of cracks found in hubs that have been modified in
accordance with the Dowty Rotol service bulletin. We have determined
that propellers with the strengthened hubs do have a potential unsafe
cracking condition because it has been reported that strengthened hubs
have also cracked. The strengthened hubs should not be excluded from
the applicability and inspection requirements of the final rule. We
have not changed the final rule in this regard.
Explanation of Further Changes to the Final Rule
We have revised the applicability to reflect the model designations
as published in the most recent type certificate data sheets.
We have changed paragraph (a)(2) of the final rule to refer to the
repair procedure to follow if any crack is detected in a hub.
We have changed references to a ``detailed visual inspection'' to
``detailed inspection.'' We have included the definition for a detailed
inspection in a note in the final rule.
[[Page 65828]]
Although the Japanese airworthiness directive referenced in this AD
specifies to submit certain information to the JCAB, this AD does not
include that requirement.
We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure
for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described
previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the 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. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we
have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.
Cost Impact
Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that none of the
airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All
airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by non-U.S.
operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly
affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD necessary to
ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane
is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the required actions would take about 32 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the inspection, and that the average labor rate
is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
AD would be $2,080 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the 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.
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 Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
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) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from 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.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
2005-22-11 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD.: Amendment 39-14355.
Docket 98-NM-300-AD.
Applicability: Model YS-11 airplanes, and Model YS-11A-200, YS-
11A-300, YS-11A-500, and YS-11A-600 series airplanes, certificated
in any category; having propeller hubs with the following serial
numbers: CHE942, DRG1/74, DRG7/68, DRG8/68, DRG13/70, DRG14/71,
DRG31/68, DRG33/70, DRG34/68, DRG35/68, DRG48/69, DRG53/69, DRG65/
78, DRG72/69, DRG73/68, DRG75/69, DRG83/65, DRG87/68, DRG105/67,
DRG126/70, DRG128/68, DRG130/70, DRG132/68, DRG132/70, DRG134/68,
DRG137/67, DRG150/69, DRG154/65, DRG161/70, DRG179/68, DRG180/68,
DRG194/63, DRG208/67, DRG231/70, DRG238/65, DRG275/68, DRG281/68,
DRG284/64, DRG300/63, DRG302/67, DRG308/64, DRG308/66, DRG486/67,
and DRG551/67.
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 (b) 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.
To detect and correct fatigue cracking of the propeller hub,
which could cause the loss of the propeller, accomplish the
following:
Inspection and Replacement
(a) Within 25 flight hours or 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, remove the spinner and perform a
detailed inspection for cracking of the propeller hub in the crack
area shown in Figure 1 of this AD.
Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying
[[Page 65829]]
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate
procedures may be required.''
(1) If no crack is found, repeat the actions required by
paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25
flight hours.
(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, replace
the hub with a new hub according to a method approved by either the
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or
the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) (or its delegated agent).
Chapter 61 of the Nihon Aeroplane Manufacturing Company YS-11 and
YS-11A Aircraft Maintenance Manuals is one approved method. Repeat
the actions required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 25 flight hours.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 65830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01NO05.001
[[Page 65831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01NO05.002
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 65832]]
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(b)(1) 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, Los Angeles ACO. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with Sec.
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards
Certificate Holding District Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
Special Flight Permits
(c) Special flight permits may be issued for non-revenue bearing
flights with essential crew only in accordance with sections 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 Japanese
airworthiness directive TCD-4667A-98, dated March 18, 1998.
Incorporation by Reference
(d) None.
Effective Date
(e) This amendment becomes effective on December 6, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 20, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-21543 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C