Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-300, AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-402, AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A Airplanes, 10513-10517 [05-4238]

Download as PDF 10513 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 8. In § 229.43, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: chapter for an electronic item as if it were a check subject to that section. * * * * * 4. In § 210.9, revise paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: § 229.43 Checks Payable in Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. § 210.9 * Settlement and payment. * * * * * (b) * * * (5) Manner of settlement. Settlement with a Reserve Bank under paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section shall be made by debit to an account on the Reserve Bank’s books, cash, or other form of settlement to which the Reserve Bank agrees, except that the Reserve Bank may, in its discretion, obtain settlement by charging the paying bank’s account. A paying bank may not set off against the amount of a settlement under this section the amount of a claim with respect to another cash item, cash letter, or other claim under section 229.34(c) and (d) of this chapter (Regulation CC) or other law. * * * * * * * * * (b) Rules applicable to Pacific islands checks. * * * * * * * * (3) § 229.34(c)(2), (c)(3), (d), (e), and (f); * * * * * 9. In Appendix E to part 229: a. Under paragraph II., § 229.2, paragraph (OO) is revised and a new paragraph (FFF) is added. b. Under paragraph XX., § 229.34, redesignate paragraphs D., E., and F. as paragraphs E., F., and G., and add a new paragraph D. APPENDIX E TO PART 229— COMMENTARY * * * * * II. Section 229.2 Definitions * * * * * PART 229—AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND COLLECTION OF CHECKS (REGULATION CC) 5. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows: OO. 229.2(oo) Interest Compensation 1. This calculation of interest compensation derives from U.C.C. 4A– 506(b). (See §§ 229.34(e) and 229.36(f).) * Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 5001–5018. 6. In § 229.2, add a new paragraph (fff) to read as follows: § 229.2 Definitions. * * * * * (fff) Remotely created check means a check that is drawn on a customer account at a bank, is created by the payee, and does not bear a signature in the format agreed to by the paying bank and the customer. 7. In § 229.34, redesignate paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g), and add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 229.34 Warranties. * * * * * (d) Transfer and presentment warranties with respect to a remotely created check. A bank that transfers or presents a remotely created check and receives a settlement or other consideration warrants to the transferee bank, any subsequent collecting bank, and the paying bank that the person on whose account the remotely created check is drawn authorized the issuance of the check according to the terms stated on the check. * * * * * VerDate jul<14>2003 14:54 Mar 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 * * * * FFF. 229.2(fff) Remotely Created Check 1. A remotely created check may be drawn on a consumer account or an account held by a corporation, unincorporated company, partnership, government unit or instrumentality, trust, or any other entity or organization. In accordance with principles of the law of agency, an agent of a payee is deemed to be the payee for purposes of the definition of remotely created checks. 2. A check authorized by a consumer over the telephone, which is created by the payee, and which bears a legend on the signature line such as ‘‘Authorized by Drawer’’ is an example of a remotely created check. A check that bears the signature of the customer or a signature purporting to be the signature of the customer in the format agreed to by the paying bank and the customer is not a remotely created check. For example, the agreed-upon format is often a handwritten signature, or in the case of corporate checks, a machine-applied signature. In these cases, a check that bears a handwritten or machineapplied signature (regardless of whether the signature was authentic) would not be a remotely created check. A typical forged check, such as a stolen personal check fraudulently signed by a person other than the drawer, is not covered by the definition of a remotely created check. 3. The definition of a remotely created check includes a remotely created check that has been reconverted to a substitute check. * * * * XX. Section 229.34 * PO 00000 * Frm 00005 * * Fmt 4702 * Warranties * Sfmt 4702 D. 229.34(d) Transfer and Presentment Warranties 1. The transfer and presentment warranties for remotely created checks supplement the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, which requires telemarketers that submit checks for payment to obtain the customer’s ‘‘express verifiable authorization’’ (the authorization may be either in writing or tape recorded and must be made available upon request to the customer’s bank). 16 CFR 310.3(a)(3). 2. Any transferring bank, collecting bank, or presenting bank warrants that the remotely created check that it is transferring or presenting is authorized according to all of its terms by the person on whose account the check is drawn. The warranties are given only by banks and only to subsequent banks in the collection chain. The warranties ultimately shift liability for the loss created by an unauthorized remotely created check to the depositary bank. The depositary bank cannot assert the transfer and presentment warranties against a depositor; however, it would likely have a claim under other laws against that person or could choose to transfer the liability by contract. The transfer and presentment warranties differ from the U.C.C. warranty provisions, which are given by any person that transfers a remotely created check including a nonbank, apply only to remotely created consumer checks, and cover authorization of the issuance of the check in the amount for which the check is drawn. 3. The transfer and presentment warranties for a remotely created check apply to a remotely created check that has been reconverted to a substitute check. * * * * * By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 28, 2005. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 05–4128 Filed 3–3–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2004–19837; Directorate Identifier 2004–CE–43–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT–300, AT–301, AT–302, AT–400, AT–400A, AT–401, AT–402, AT–602, AT–802, and AT–802A Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1 10514 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules certain Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) Models AT–300, AT–301, AT–302, AT– 400, AT–400A, AT–401, AT–402, AT– 602, AT–802, and AT–802A airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively tighten the four eyebolts that attach the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut to the specified torque, and repetitively replace at specified intervals any eyebolts that attach the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut. An option for replacing the steel brace assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace assembly with larger bushings and stronger eyebolts that increases the interval for replacement of eyebolts for AT–602, AT–802, and AT– 802A airplanes is also included in this proposed AD. This proposed AD results from reports of failures of the subject eyebolt. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect, correct, and prevent future fatigue failure in any eyebolt that attaches the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut. Failure of the eyebolt could lead to an abrupt change or complete loss of pitch control and/or the airplane departing from controlled flight. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by May 6, 2005. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:/ /dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– 001. • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Air Tractor, Incorporated, P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374. To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to https://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA–2004– 19837. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew D. McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), ASW–150, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, VerDate jul<14>2003 14:54 Mar 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 Texas 76193–0150. Current duty station: San Antonio Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO–43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308– 3365; facsimile: (210) 308–3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number, ‘‘FAA–2004–19837; Directorate Identifier 2004–CE–43–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). This is docket number FAA–2004–19837. You may review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit https:// dms.dot.gov. Are there any specific portions of this proposed AD I should pay attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts. Docket Information Where can I go to view the docket information? You may view the AD docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (eastern standard time), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1–800– 647–5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD docket on the Internet at http:/ PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 /dms.dot.gov. The comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion What events have caused this proposed AD? In December 1985, Snow Engineering Co. issued Service Letter # 62 to recommend the inspection of eyebolts. This was in response to several reports of eyebolt failures on Models AT–301 and AT–400 airplanes. In response to another failure of an eyebolt on an AT–400 airplane, Snow Engineering Co. issued Service Letter #129 in September 1995. This service letter recommended eyebolt replacement every 2,000 hours time-inservice (TIS) for Models AT–301 and AT–400 airplanes. After a report of an eyebolt failure on a Model AT–602 airplane, Snow Engineering Co. revised Service Letter #129 in November 2003 to recommend replacing eyebolts for Models AT–602, AT–802, and AT–802A airplanes every 1,350 hours TIS. The FAA also received two service difficulty reports (SDRs) in November 2003. Both SDRs referenced Model AT– 802 airplane eyebolt cracks. In December 2003, FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) CE–04–23. This SAIB recommended periodic eyebolt replacement following Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129. In April 2004, we received a report of both eyebolts that attach the left hand stabilizer failing in flight on a Model AT–602 airplane. These eyebolts had accumulated 1,675 hours TIS. Engineering analysis concludes that the eyebolts failed as a result of highcycle, low-nominal stress. This is most likely due to the loss of torque during service. Air Tractor has since redesigned the horizontal stabilizer structure for Models AT–802 and AT–602 airplanes to accommodate a new, stronger eyebolt. Snow Engineering Co. also revised Service Letter #129 with new eyebolt replacement intervals and issued Service Letter #129A to include procedures for optional replacement of the steel brace assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace assembly with larger bushings to accommodate new stronger eyebolts on existing Models AT–602, AT–802, and AT–802A airplanes. This modification provides for increased safety and extends eyebolt replacement intervals. What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? Failure of an eyebolt could lead to an abrupt change or complete loss of pitch control and/or aircraft departure from controlled flight. E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1 10515 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules Is there service information that applies to this subject? As discussed earlier, Snow Engineering Co. has issued the following Service Letters: —Service Letter #129, revised: October 21, 2004; and —Service Letter #129A, dated August 7, 2004. What are the provisions of this service information? These service letters include procedures for: —Service Letter #129 recommends tightening the eyebolt nut to a specified torque, replacing the eyebolt, and includes the inspection procedures when replacing any eyebolt; and —Service Letter #129A, for certain eyebolts, recommends replacing eyebolts with larger eyebolts, tightening the eyebolt nut to a specified torque, and procedures for replacing the steel brace assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace assembly with larger bushings. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD What has FAA decided? We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing AD action. What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service information. How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this proposed AD? On July 10, 2002, we 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 relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. 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. Costs of Compliance How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,011 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 do the proposed tightening of the four eyebolt nuts to the specified torque: Total cost per airplane Labor cost Parts cost 1 workhour × $65 per hour = $65 ............................. No parts required ..................................................... We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of the four eyebolts for the Models AT–300, AT– 301, AT–302, AT–400, AT–400A, AT– Average parts cost Average labor cost 1 workhour × $65 per hour = $65 ......................................................................... We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of the steel brace assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace assembly with larger Average parts cost Average labor cost 22 workhours × $65 per hour = $1,430 ................................................................. Authority for this Rulemaking What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 14:54 Mar 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 $186.30 $901.65 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 AD. Regulatory Findings Would this proposed AD impact various entities? We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 $65 Total cost on U.S. operators $65 × 1,011 = $65,715 401, AT–402 AT–602, AT–802, and AT– 802A airplanes: Average total cost per airplane $251.30 Average total cost on U.S. operators 1,011 × $251.30 = $254,064.30 bushings on existing Models AT–602, AT–802, and AT–802A airplanes: Average total cost per airplane $2,331.65 Average total cost on U.S. operators 312 × $2,331.65 = $727,474.80 responsibilities among the various levels of government. Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed AD: 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. 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 summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1 10516 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘AD Docket FAA– 2004–19837; Directorate Identifier 2004CE–43–AD’’ in your request. 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 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD? 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: (a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by May 6, 2005. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action? (b) None. 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Air Tractor, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2004– 19837; Directorate Identifier 2004–CE– 43–AD. What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD? (c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models Serial numbers AT–300, AT–301, AT–302, AT–400, and AT–400A ................................ AT–401/AT–402 ........................................................................................ AT–602 ..................................................................................................... All serial numbers. All through 401–0700. All through 602–0695 that have any 7/16-inch eyebolt (P/N AN47–22A) installed; all beginning with 602–0703; and all that have any 9/16inch eyebolt (P/N 30774–1) installed. All through 802A–0188 that have any 7/16-inch eyebolt (P/N AN74– 30A) installed; all beginning with 802A–0189; and all that have any 9/16-inch eyebolt (P/N 30775–1) installed. AT–802 and AT–802A .............................................................................. What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD? (d) This AD is the result of reports of failures of the subject eyebolt. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect, correct, and prevent future fatigue failure in any eyebolt that attaches the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut. Failure of the eyebolt could lead to an abrupt change or complete loss of pitch control and/or the airplane departing from controlled flight. What Must I Do To Address This Problem? (e) To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures (1) Tighten the four eyebolts that attach the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut using the torque values referenced in Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129, revised October 21, 2004. (2) Repetitively replace any eyebolts that attach the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut. Within the next 12 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done. Repetitively tighten thereafter at every 12 calendar months after the date of the initial tightening to the specified torque. Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129, revised October 21, 2004. Initially replace upon accumulating the applicable number of hours time-in-service (TIS) referenced in Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129, revised October 21, 2004, or within 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Replace repetitively thereafter at the intervals referenced in Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129, revised October 21, 2004. At any time after the effective date of this AD. Use the applicable time in Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129A, dated August 7, 2004. The repetitive replacement of paragraph (e)(2) of this AD is still required. Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129, revised October 21, 2004. (3)For Model AT–602 airplanes through serial number 602–0695 and AT–802, and 802A airplanes through serial number 802A–0188: As an alternative in order to use the increased replacement compliance times in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you may replace the steel brace assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace assembly with larger bushings, and. (i) For the Model AT–602 airplane: replace any 7/16-inch eyebolt with the 9/16-inch eyebolt (P/N 30774–1). (ii) For the Model AT–802 and AT–802A airplanes: replace any 7/16-inch eyebolt with the 9/16-inch eyebolt (P/N 30775–1). VerDate jul<14>2003 14:54 Mar 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129A, dated August 7, 2004. E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules Actions Compliance (4) Do not install any 5/16-inch eyebolt (P/N AN44–17A or AN44–21A), 7/16-inch eyebolt (AN47–22A or AN47–30A), or 9/16-inch eyebolt (P/N 30774–1 or 30775–1) that exceeds the corresponding cumulative hours TIS specified in paragraphs (e)(2) or (e)(3) of this AD.. As of the effective date of this AD. .................. May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance? (f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Andrew D. McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), ASW–150, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193– 0150. Current duty station: San Antonio Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO–43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308–3365; facsimile: (210) 308–3370. May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD? (g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor, Incorporated, P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA–2004–19837. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 28, 2005. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–4238 Filed 3–3–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P VerDate jul<14>2003 14:54 Mar 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 Procedures DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2004–19354; Directorate Identifier 2004–CE–30–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Precise Flight, Inc. Models SVS I and SVS IA Standby Vacuum Systems Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all airplanes equipped with Precise Flight, Inc. (Precise Flight) Models SVS I and SVS IA standby vacuum systems (SVS) installed under certain supplemental type certificates or through field approval. This proposed AD would require you to replace the airplane flight manual supplement (AFMS) in the airplane flight manual with the appropriate revision and install placards as defined in the AFMS, upgrade the Model SVS I or SVS IA SVS to the Model VI SVS, and add the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) to the maintenance schedule for the aircraft. This proposed AD results from several reports of failed shuttle control valves of the standby vacuum system (SVS) and one report of an airplane crash with a fatality in which improper use of the SVS was a factor. We are issuing this proposed AD to correct problems with the SVS before failure or malfunction during instrument flight rules (IFR) flight that can lead to pilot disorientation and loss of control of the aircraft. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by April 29, 2005. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:/ /dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 10517 Not Applicable. and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– 001. • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Precise Flight, Inc., 63120 Powell Butte Road, Bend Oregon 97701, telephone: (800) 547–2558; facsimile: (541) 388– 1105; electronic mail: preciseflight@preciseflight.com; Internet: https://www.preciseflight.com/. To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to https://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA–2004– 19354. Ms. Marcia Smith, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4065; telephone: (425) 917–6484; facsimile: (425) 917– 6590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number, ‘‘FAA–2004–19354; Directorate Identifier 2004–CE–30–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 42 (Friday, March 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10513-10517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2004-19837; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-43-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-300, AT-
301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-402, AT-602, AT-802, and AT-
802A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for

[[Page 10514]]

certain Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) Models AT-300, AT-301, AT-302,
AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-402, AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes.
This proposed AD would require you to repetitively tighten the four
eyebolts that attach the front and rear spar of the horizontal
stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut to the specified torque,
and repetitively replace at specified intervals any eyebolts that
attach the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the
respective stabilizer strut. An option for replacing the steel brace
assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace assembly with
larger bushings and stronger eyebolts that increases the interval for
replacement of eyebolts for AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes is
also included in this proposed AD. This proposed AD results from
reports of failures of the subject eyebolt. We are issuing this
proposed AD to detect, correct, and prevent future fatigue failure in
any eyebolt that attaches the front and rear spar of the horizontal
stabilizer to the respective stabilizer strut. Failure of the eyebolt
could lead to an abrupt change or complete loss of pitch control and/or
the airplane departing from controlled flight.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by May 6, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed
AD:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To get the service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Air Tractor, Incorporated, P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374.
To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to https://dms.dot.gov.
The docket number is FAA-2004-19837.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew D. McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), ASW-150, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0150. Current duty station:
San Antonio Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO-43), 10100
Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210)
308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any
written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal.
Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the
docket number, ``FAA-2004-19837; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-43-AD''
at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed
rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone
can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
This is docket number FAA-2004-19837. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Are there any specific portions of this proposed AD I should pay
attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and
that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will
summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts.

Docket Information

Where can I go to view the docket information? You may view the AD
docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. (eastern standard time), Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on
the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at
the street address stated in ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD docket
on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov. The comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

Discussion

What events have caused this proposed AD? In December 1985, Snow
Engineering Co. issued Service Letter 62 to recommend the
inspection of eyebolts. This was in response to several reports of
eyebolt failures on Models AT-301 and AT-400 airplanes.
In response to another failure of an eyebolt on an AT-400 airplane,
Snow Engineering Co. issued Service Letter 129 in September
1995. This service letter recommended eyebolt replacement every 2,000
hours time-in-service (TIS) for Models AT-301 and AT-400 airplanes.
After a report of an eyebolt failure on a Model AT-602 airplane, Snow
Engineering Co. revised Service Letter 129 in November 2003 to
recommend replacing eyebolts for Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A
airplanes every 1,350 hours TIS.
The FAA also received two service difficulty reports (SDRs) in
November 2003. Both SDRs referenced Model AT-802 airplane eyebolt
cracks. In December 2003, FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information
Bulletin (SAIB) CE-04-23. This SAIB recommended periodic eyebolt
replacement following Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter 129.
In April 2004, we received a report of both eyebolts that attach
the left hand stabilizer failing in flight on a Model AT-602 airplane.
These eyebolts had accumulated 1,675 hours TIS.
Engineering analysis concludes that the eyebolts failed as a result
of high-cycle, low-nominal stress. This is most likely due to the loss
of torque during service.
Air Tractor has since redesigned the horizontal stabilizer
structure for Models AT-802 and AT-602 airplanes to accommodate a new,
stronger eyebolt.
Snow Engineering Co. also revised Service Letter 129 with
new eyebolt replacement intervals and issued Service Letter
129A to include procedures for optional replacement of the
steel brace assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace
assembly with larger bushings to accommodate new stronger eyebolts on
existing Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes. This
modification provides for increased safety and extends eyebolt
replacement intervals.
What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? Failure of an
eyebolt could lead to an abrupt change or complete loss of pitch
control and/or aircraft departure from controlled flight.

[[Page 10515]]

Is there service information that applies to this subject? As
discussed earlier, Snow Engineering Co. has issued the following
Service Letters:

--Service Letter 129, revised: October 21, 2004; and
--Service Letter 129A, dated August 7, 2004.

What are the provisions of this service information? These service
letters include procedures for:

--Service Letter 129 recommends tightening the eyebolt nut to
a specified torque, replacing the eyebolt, and includes the inspection
procedures when replacing any eyebolt; and
--Service Letter 129A, for certain eyebolts, recommends
replacing eyebolts with larger eyebolts, tightening the eyebolt nut to
a specified torque, and procedures for replacing the steel brace
assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace assembly with
larger bushings.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

What has FAA decided? We have evaluated all pertinent information
and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop
on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are
proposing AD action.
What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require
you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service
information.
How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this proposed AD? On
July 10, 2002, we 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 relates to altered products, special flight
permits, and alternative methods of compliance. 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.

Costs of Compliance

How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that
this proposed AD affects 1,011 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
do the proposed tightening of the four eyebolt nuts to the specified
torque:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Labor cost Parts cost cost per Total cost on U.S. operators
airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 workhour x $65 per hour = $65...... No parts required...... $65 $65 x 1,011 = $65,715
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of
the four eyebolts for the Models AT-300, AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-
400A, AT-401, AT-402 AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Average total cost
Average labor cost parts cost per Average total cost on U.S. operators
airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 workhour x $65 per hour = $65..... $186.30 $251.30 1,011 x $251.30 = $254,064.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of
the steel brace assembly inside the stabilizer with a new steel brace
assembly with larger bushings on existing Models AT-602, AT-802, and
AT-802A airplanes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Average total cost
Average labor cost parts cost per Average total cost on U.S. operators
airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 workhours x $65 per hour = $1,430 $901.65 $2,331.65 312 x $2,331.65 = $727,474.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for this Rulemaking

What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action?
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 AD.

Regulatory Findings

Would this proposed AD impact various entities? We have determined
that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.
Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory
action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
AD:
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. 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 summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD
and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get

[[Page 10516]]

a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``AD Docket FAA-2004-19837; Directorate
Identifier 2004-CE-43-AD'' in your request.

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 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. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Air Tractor, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2004-19837; Directorate Identifier
2004-CE-43-AD.

When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD?

(a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness
directive (AD) by May 6, 2005.

What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action?

(b) None.

What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models Serial numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT-300, AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, and AT- All serial numbers.
400A.
AT-401/AT-402.......................... All through 401-0700.
AT-602................................. All through 602-0695 that have
any 7/16-inch eyebolt (P/N
AN47-22A) installed; all
beginning with 602-0703; and
all that have any 9/16-inch
eyebolt (P/N 30774-1)
installed.
AT-802 and AT-802A..................... All through 802A-0188 that have
any 7/16-inch eyebolt (P/N
AN74-30A) installed; all
beginning with 802A-0189; and
all that have any 9/16-inch
eyebolt (P/N 30775-1)
installed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

(d) This AD is the result of reports of failures of the subject
eyebolt. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect,
correct, and prevent future fatigue failure in any eyebolt that
attaches the front and rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer to the
respective stabilizer strut. Failure of the eyebolt could lead to an
abrupt change or complete loss of pitch control and/or the airplane
departing from controlled flight.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Compliance Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Tighten the four Within the next 12 Follow Snow
eyebolts that attach the calendar months Engineering Co.
front and rear spar of the after the effective Service Letter
horizontal stabilizer to date of this AD, 129,
the respective stabilizer unless already revised October 21,
strut using the torque done. Repetitively 2004.
values referenced in Snow tighten thereafter
Engineering Co. Service at every 12
Letter 129, calendar months
revised October 21, 2004. after the date of
the initial
tightening to the
specified torque.
(2) Repetitively replace any Initially replace Follow Snow
eyebolts that attach the upon accumulating Engineering Co.
front and rear spar of the the applicable Service Letter
horizontal stabilizer to number of hours 129,
the respective stabilizer time-in-service revised October 21,
strut. (TIS) referenced in 2004.
Snow Engineering
Co. Service Letter
129,
revised October 21,
2004, or within 50
hours TIS after the
effective date of
this AD, whichever
occurs later.
Replace
repetitively
thereafter at the
intervals
referenced in Snow
Engineering Co.
Service Letter
129,
revised October 21,
2004.
(3)For Model AT-602 At any time after Follow Snow
airplanes through serial the effective date Engineering Co.
number 602-0695 and AT-802, of this AD. Use the Service Letter
and 802A airplanes through applicable time in 129A,
serial number 802A-0188: As Snow Engineering dated August 7,
an alternative in order to Co. Service Letter 2004.
use the increased 129A,
replacement compliance dated August 7,
times in paragraph (e)(2) 2004. The
of this AD, you may replace repetitive
the steel brace assembly replacement of
inside the stabilizer with paragraph (e)(2) of
a new steel brace assembly this AD is still
with larger bushings, and. required.
(i) For the Model AT-602
airplane: replace any 7/
16-inch eyebolt with
the 9/16-inch eyebolt
(P/N 30774-1).
(ii) For the Model AT-
802 and AT-802A
airplanes: replace any
7/16-inch eyebolt with
the 9/16-inch eyebolt
(P/N 30775-1).

[[Page 10517]]

(4) Do not install any 5/16- As of the effective Not Applicable.
inch eyebolt (P/N AN44-17A date of this AD..
or AN44-21A), 7/16-inch
eyebolt (AN47-22A or AN47-
30A), or 9/16-inch eyebolt
(P/N 30774-1 or 30775-1)
that exceeds the
corresponding cumulative
hours TIS specified in
paragraphs (e)(2) or (e)(3)
of this AD..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?

(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your
principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will
send your request to the Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA. For information on any already approved alternative
methods of compliance, contact Andrew D. McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), ASW-150, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0150. Current duty station:
San Antonio Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO-43), 10100
Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210)
308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370.

May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD?

(g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact
Air Tractor, Incorporated, P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374. To view
the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC, or on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov. The docket
number is FAA-2004-19837.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 28, 2005.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-4238 Filed 3-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.