Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon

43075
Proposed Rules Federal Register

Vol. 71, No. 146
Monday, July 31, 2006
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ADDRESSES: Use one of the following on all Raytheon Beech Models 45 (YT–
contains notices to the public of the proposed addresses to comment on this proposed 34), A45 (T–34A, B45), and D45 (T–34B)
issuance of rules and regulations. The AD: airplanes:
purpose of these notices is to give interested • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// • Repetitive inspections, using the
persons an opportunity to participate in the dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions
rule making prior to the adoption of the final dye penetrant method at 500-hour time-
rules.
for sending your comments in-service (TIS) intervals, of the front
electronically. and rear horizontal stabilizer spars
• Governmentwide rulemaking Web between the butt rib and the inboard
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov end for cracks; and
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically. • Replacement of the horizontal
Federal Aviation Administration
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, stabilizer if cracks are found in either
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 spar or the reinforcing doubler.
14 CFR Part 39
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Investigation of a T–34 series airplane
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25105; Directorate accident where the wing separated in
Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD]
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001. flight revealed fatigue cracks in the
RIN 2120–AA64 • Fax: (202) 493–2251. stabilizer spar root sections. These spar
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on root sections were inspected for fatigue
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon the plaza level of the Nassif Building, cracks using the dye penetrant method
Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, (as required by AD 62–24–01) just 281
(YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday hours TIS before the fatal accident.
(T–34B) Airplanes through Friday, except Federal holidays. Since 281 hours TIS is much shorter
AGENCY: Federal Aviation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.N. than the 500-hour TIS inspection
Administration (FAA), Department of Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, interval required by this AD, we have
Transportation (DOT). Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, determined that using dye penetrant
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent inspection method may not detect
(NPRM). Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; cracks before failure of the horizontal
telephone: (316) 946–4155; facsimile: stabilizer spars. Therefore, we are
SUMMARY: We propose to supersede (316) 946–4107. proposing to require the surface eddy
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 62–24–01, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: current inspection method to detect
which applies to all Raytheon Aircraft cracks in the horizontal stabilizer spars.
Company (Raytheon) Beech Models 45 Comments Invited
(YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B45), and D45 This condition, if not corrected, could
We invite you to send any written result in failure of the horizontal
(T–34B) airplanes. AD 62–24–01 relevant data, views, or arguments
currently requires you to repetitively stabilizer spars caused by fatigue cracks,
regarding this proposed AD. Send your which could result in stabilizer
inspect, using the dye penetrant comments to an address listed under the
method, the front and rear horizontal separation and loss of control of the
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket airplane.
stabilizer spars for cracks and replace number, ‘‘FAA–2006–25105; Directorate
any cracked stabilizer. Since we issued Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD’’ at the FAA’s Determination and Requirements
AD 62–24–01, we determined that using beginning of your comments. We of This Proposed AD
dye penetrant inspection method may specifically invite comments on the
not detect cracks before failure of the We are proposing this AD because we
overall regulatory, economic, evaluated all information and
horizontal stabilizer spars. Therefore, environmental, and energy aspects of
we are proposing to require the surface determined the unsafe condition
the proposed AD. We will consider all described previously is likely to exist or
eddy current inspection method to comments received by the closing date
detect cracks in the horizontal stabilizer develop on other products of the same
and may amend the proposed AD in type design. This proposed AD would
spars. Consequently, this proposed AD light of those comments.
would retain the actions required in AD supersede AD 62–24–01 with a new AD
We will post all comments we
62–24–01 and change the required that would retain the actions required in
receive, without change, to http://
inspection method from dye penetrant AD 62–24–01 and only change the
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
to surface eddy current. We are inspection procedure from the dye
information you provide. We will also
proposing this AD to prevent failure of penetrant method to the surface eddy
post a report summarizing each
the front and rear horizontal stabilizer current method.
substantive verbal contact we receive
spars caused by fatigue cracks. This concerning this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance
failure could result in stabilizer
separation and loss of control of the Discussion We estimate that this proposed AD
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
airplane. Fatigue cracks found in the horizontal would affect 475 airplanes in the U.S.
DATES: We must receive comments on stabilizer spars caused us to issue AD registry.
this proposed AD by September 29, 62–24–01, Amendment 39–508. AD 62– We estimate the following costs to do
2006. 24–01 currently requires the following the proposed inspection:
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:10 Jul 28, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM 31JYP1
43076 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 146 / Monday, July 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Total cost per Total cost on U.S.

Labor cost Parts cost airplane operators
8 work-hours × $80 per hour = $640 ......................................... Not applicable .......................... $640 $640 × 475 = $304,000.
We estimate the following costs to do be required based on the results of the determining the number of airplanes
any necessary replacements that would proposed inspection. We have no way of that may need this replacement:
Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane
4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 ............................................................................................... $3,500 $320 + $3,500 = $3,820.
Cost Difference Between This Proposed national Government and the States, or PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
AD and AD 62–24–01 on the distribution of power and DIRECTIVES
The only difference between this responsibilities among the various
levels of government. 1. The authority citation for part 39
proposed AD and AD 62–24–01 is the continues to read as follows:
proposed change of inspection method. For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
There may be some minimal additional
cost involved in doing the proposed 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory § 39.13 [Amended]
eddy current inspection because of action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
possible equipment rentals necessary. removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
No additional actions are being 62–24–01, Amendment 39–508, and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
proposed. We have determined that this adding the following new AD:
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
proposed AD action does not increase
the cost impact over that already 3. Will not have a significant Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket No.
economic impact, positive or negative, FAA–2006–25105; Directorate Identifier
required by AD 62–24–01.
on a substantial number of small entities 2006–CE–33–AD.
Authority for This Rulemaking under the criteria of the Regulatory Comments Due Date
Title 49 of the United States Code Flexibility Act. (a) We must receive comments on this
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue We prepared a regulatory evaluation airworthiness directive (AD) action by
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, of the estimated costs to comply with September 29, 2006.
Section 106, describes the authority of this proposed AD and placed it in the Affected ADs
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, AD docket. (b) This AD supersedes AD 62–24–01,
Aviation Programs, describes in more Amendment 39–508.
detail the scope of the Agency’s Examining the AD Docket
authority. Applicability
You may examine the AD docket that
We are issuing this rulemaking under contains the proposed AD, the (c) This AD affects the following airplane
the authority described in Subtitle VII, models and serial numbers that are
regulatory evaluation, any comments certificated in any category:
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, received, and other information on the
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in
section, Congress charges the FAA with Serial
person at the Docket Management Model numbers
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
air commerce by prescribing regulations Monday through Friday, except Federal Beech 45 (YT–34) ..................... All.
for practices, methods, and procedures holidays. The Docket Office (telephone Beech A45 (T34A, B–45) .......... All.
the Administrator finds necessary for (800) 647–5227) is located at the street Beech D45 (T–34B) ................... All.
safety in air commerce. This regulation address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
is within the scope of that authority Unsafe Condition
Comments will be available in the AD
because it addresses an unsafe condition (d) This AD results from our determination
docket shortly after receipt.
that is likely to exist or develop on that the surface eddy current inspection
products identified in this rulemaking List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 method should be used in place of the dye
action. penetrant inspection method currently
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation required in AD 62–24–01. We are issuing this
Regulatory Findings safety, Safety. AD to prevent failure of the front and rear
We have determined that this horizontal stabilizer spars caused by fatigue
The Proposed Amendment cracks. This failure could result in stabilizer
proposed AD would not have federalism
separation and loss of control of the airplane.
implications under Executive Order Accordingly, under the authority
13132. This proposed AD would not delegated to me by the Administrator, Compliance
have a substantial direct effect on the the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part (e) To address this problem, you must do
States, on the relationship between the 39 as follows: the following:
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 146 / Monday, July 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43077
Actions Compliance Procedures
(1) Using the surface eddy current inspection At the next repetitive inspection interval re- The surface eddy current inspection proce-
procedures outlined in the appendix of this quired by AD 62–24–01 or within the next 6 dures are contained in the appendix to this
AD, inspect the front and rear horizontal sta- months after the effective date of this AD, AD.
bilizer spars between the butt rib and the in- whichever occurs first. Repetitively inspect
board end for cracks. thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500
hours time-in-service
(2) If any crack is found in either spar or the Before further flight after the inspection in Not applicable.
reinforcing doubler during any inspection re- which the crack is found. After the replace-
quired in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace ment, continue with the repetitive inspection
the stabilizer. requirement in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD
Alternative Methods of Compliance front and rear spar assemblies of Raytheon specifications: ATA specification 105, SNT–
(AMOCs) Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 (YT–34), TC–1A, or NAS–410 (MIL-std 410E).
(f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 (T–34B)
Methods
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: T.N. airplane stabilizers outside of the steel
Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, bushings in the attach holes. Typical Set-up Parameters:
1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport, Frequency ¥350 KHz, Gain Vertical ¥75
Area To Be Inspected dB, Horizontal ¥69 dB, Drive-Mid, Filters-Lo
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–
4155; facsimile: (316) 946–4107, has the To access the area of inspection, remove Pass-30, Hi Pass-0, Lift off-Horizontal to the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if the stabilizer from the airplane. The areas to left, adjust as required. The most reliable
requested using the procedures found in 14 be inspected include the forward and aft indication (minimum of 11⁄2 to 2 graticules)
CFR 39.19. surfaces of the inner and outer front and rear of the smallest observable flaw in the coupon
(g) AMOCs approved for AD 62–24–01 are spars of the horizontal stabilizers in the areas (see attach Figures) occurs from the notch
approved for this AD. surrounding each of the attach holes. extending 0.025″ past the edge of the nominal
Related Information fastener head (total notch length of 0.100″
Preparing the Area for Inspection
from the edge of the nominal hole). Install
(h) To view the AD docket, go to the Thoroughly clean area to be inspected with appropriate aluminum guide pin into
Docket Management Facility, U.S. solvent (acetone or equivalent) as required bushing such that the edge of the guide pin
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh until no signs of dirt, grime, or oil remain on
Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, is flush with the edge of the bushing. Using
the front and rear spars from the closeout the pin (see the attached Figures) as a guide,
Washington, DC, or on the Internet at http:// former inboard on the forward and aft
dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket circle the area surrounding the steel bushing
surfaces of the spars. with the probe and adjacent area
No. FAA–2006–25105; Directorate Identifier
Surfaces to be inspected should be smooth (approximately 1⁄4″) to inspect for cracks.
2006–CE–33–AD.
and corrosion-free. Any loss of thickness due Inspect forward and aft surfaces surrounding
Appendix to Docket No. FAA–2006– to corrosion below material thickness bushings of each spar.
25105 tolerance is cause for rejection of the
Note: T–34 Spar Corporation, 2800 Airport
structure. An ultrasonic tester may be used
Surface Eddy Current Inspection Procedure Road, Hanger A, Ada, Oklahoma, 74820 is a
to determine if material thickness has been
source for these coupons and pin.
Note: This surface eddy current inspection compromised.
procedure is based on T–34 Spar Corporation Accept/Reject Criteria
Equipment Requirements
TSC 3506, Rev C, dated May 10, 2005. The
T–34 Spar Corporation is allowing the use of Nortec Stavely 2000D Eddy Current Tester Any repeatable flaw indication is cause for
this procedure to be included in this or equivalent. rejection in accordance with the procedure.
Airworthiness Directive. Alternative methods Probe: 50–500 KHz, shielded, absolute, In the event that any crack is detected,
of compliance procedures will be allowed, if 0.071″ diameter (0.090 max. diameter), right describe the flaw in detail providing sketch
approved by the Wichita Aircraft angle, pencil style, surface probe, 5″ long, 1⁄2″ as needed and send the information to the
Certification Office and requested using the drop or equivalent. Use 0.025″ notch (beyond Wichita ACO.
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. head) for calibration Documentation Requirements
Purpose Personal Requirements Record inspection findings in the aircraft
This procedure is to be used to detect Technicians with Eddy Current, Level II or logbook.
cracks in the inner and outer spars of the Level III per one of the following BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
EP31JY06.001</GPH>
EP31JY06.002</GPH>
EP31JY06.003</GPH>
EP31JY06.004</GPH>
EP31JY06.005</GPH>
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 24, • Government-wide rulemaking Web B200C, B300, and B300C airplanes.
2006. site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov These nonconformities affected the
James E. Jackson, and follow the instructions for sending flight controls and included improper
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, your comments electronically. assembly and damage to the flight
Aircraft Certification Service. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; controls that could lead to loss of
[FR Doc. 06–6581 Filed 7–28–06; 8:45 am] U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 control of the airplane.
BILLING CODE 4910–13–C Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, This condition, if not corrected, could
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– result in an unsafe condition by
0001. reducing capabilities of the flight
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Fax: (202) 493–2251. controls.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
Federal Aviation Administration the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Relevant Service Information
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, We have reviewed Raytheon Aircraft
14 CFR Part 39 DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Company Mandatory Service Bulletin
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25157; Directorate through Friday, except Federal holidays. Number SB 27–3761, Issued: February
Identifier 2006–CE–34–AD] For service information identified in 2006.
this proposed AD, contact Raytheon
RIN 2120–AA64 Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, The service information describes
Kansas 67201–0085; telephone: (800) procedures for inspecting the flight
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon control systems to ensure conformity
429–5372 or (316) 676–3140.
Aircraft Company Models C90A, B200, with type design and correct the unsafe
B200C, B300, and B300C Airplanes FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
condition.
Chris B. Morgan, Aerospace Engineer,
AGENCY: Federal Aviation FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification FAA’s Determination and Requirements
Administration (FAA), Department of Office, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, of the Proposed AD
Transportation (DOT). Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–
We are proposing this AD because we
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 4154; facsimile: (316) 946–4107.
(NPRM). evaluated all information and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: determined the unsafe condition
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new Comments Invited described previously is likely to exist or
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain develop on other products of the same
We invite you to send any written
Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) type design. This proposed AD would
relevant data, views, or arguments
(formerly Beech) Models C90A, B200, require you to inspect the flight controls
regarding this proposed AD. Send your
B200C, B300, and B300C airplanes. This for improper assembly or damage, and
comments to an address listed under the
proposed AD would require you to if any improperly assembled or
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket
inspect the flight controls for improper damaged flight controls are found, take
number, ‘‘FAA–2006–25157; Directorate
assembly or damage, and if any corrective action.
Identifier 2006–CE–34–AD’’ at the
improperly assembled or damaged flight
beginning of your comments. We Differences Between This Proposed AD
controls are found, take corrective
specifically invite comments on the and the Service Information
action. This proposed AD results from a
overall regulatory, economic,
report of inspections of several affected We are requiring all phases of the
environmental, and energy aspects of
airplanes with improperly assembled or flight control system be inspected at one
the proposed AD. We will consider all
damaged flight controls. We are time. The service information as
comments received by the closing date
proposing this AD to detect and correct presented allows some sections of the
improperly assembled or damaged flight and may amend the proposed AD in
light of those comments. system to go 800 hours time-in-service
controls, which could result in an before they are scheduled for
We will post all comments we
unsafe condition by reducing inspection. We feel this time is
receive, without change, to http://
capabilities of the flight controls and excessive to allow potential safety items
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
lead to loss of control of the airplane. and nonconformities to exist. We have
information you provide. We will also
DATES: We must receive comments on determined that the proposed
post a report summarizing each
this proposed AD by September 29, substantive verbal contact we receive compliance time will not inadvertently
2006. concerning this proposed AD. ground the affected airplanes.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following Costs of Compliance
addresses to comment on this proposed Discussion
AD: We have received a report from an We estimate that this proposed AD
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to FAA Manufacturing Inspection District would affect 135 airplanes in the U.S.
http://dms.dot.gov and follow the Office that describes numerous registry.
instructions for sending your comments nonconformities during the manufacture We estimate the following costs to do
electronically. of Raytheon Models C90A, B200, the proposed inspection:
Total cost per Total cost on

Labor cost Parts cost airplane U.S. operators
80 work-hours × $80 per hour = $6,400 ...................................................

Not Applicable ................................. $6,400 $864,000
We have no way of determining the based on the results of the proposed Authority for This Rulemaking
number of airplanes that may need any inspection.
corrective action that would be required Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue

Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Raytheon

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

43075

Proposed Rules Federal Register

Monday, July 31, 2006

Total cost per Total cost on U.S.

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

Actions Compliance Procedures

Total cost per Total cost on

80 work-hours × $80 per hour = $6,400 ...................................................

Not Applicable ................................. $6,400 $864,000

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi