Airworthiness Directives; Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG Model G103 TWIN ASTIR Sailplanes, 54311-54314 [05-18205]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules surrounding Oyster Creek is of particular concern and requires extensive review and consideration. The petitioner states that traffic congestion is a growing concern in Ocean County as the infrastructure has not kept up with the population growth. Any large scale evacuation would likely be fraught with difficulties that would endanger lives. The Proposed Amendment The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to provide that a renewed license will be issued only if the plant operator demonstrates that the plant meets all criteria and requirements that would be applicable if the plant was being proposed de novo for initial construction. The petitioner also requests that § 54.29 be amended to provide that a renewed license may be issued by the Commission if the Commission finds that, upon a de novo review, the plant would be entitled to an initial operating license in accordance with all criteria applicable to initial operating licenses, as set out in the Commission’s regulations, including 10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 71, 100, and the appendices to these regulations. The petitioner requests that corresponding amendments be made to §§ 54.4, 54.19, 54.21, and 54.23, and that § 54.30 be rescinded. The petitioner states that the criteria to be examined as part of a renewal application should include such factors as demographics, siting, emergency evacuation, site security, etc. The petitioner believes that this analysis should be performed in a manner that focuses the NRC’s attention on the critical plant-specific factors and conditions that have the greatest potential to affect public safety. Problems With the Current Process The petitioner believes that the process and criteria currently established in part 54 is seriously flawed. The petitioner states that the process for license renewal appears to be based on the theory that if the plant was originally licensed at the site, it is satisfactory to renew the license, barring any significant issues having to do with passive systems, structures, and components (SSCs). The petitioner states that the regulations for license renewal should be broadened and sufficiently comprehensive to cover all of the facets (including consideration of a worst-case scenario) that were considered for initial construction. Alternatively, the petitioner states that the license renewal process should examine all issues related to the plant and its original license, and then concentrate on any issues that are new VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:58 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 to that plant or have changed since the original license was issued or that deviate from the original licensing basis. Key Renewal Issues The petitioner states that as Oyster Creek approaches the end of its 40 year operating license, it is necessary to answer important questions about the plant. The petitioner states that these questions are specific to the Oyster Creek plant and those who live near the plant deserve to have these questions reviewed. These questions include the following: • Could a new plant, designed and built to current standards, be licensed on the same site today? With the growth of Ocean County, which continues today, it is not certain that a nuclear plant would be permitted there today. • The design of Oyster Creek’s reactor has been prohibited for nearly four decades. Does that reactor conform to today’s standards? Would Oyster Creek receive a license today with that reactor? • In light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, would Oyster Creek’s storage system, which is located close to Route 9, be acceptable today? • Is the evacuation plan realistic in today’s Ocean County? Would the tremendous growth of Ocean County over the past four decades, and the failure of Ocean County’s infrastructure to keep pace with this growth, inhibit Oyster Creek’s likelihood of receiving an operating license? • Would a license be permitted in light of the public opposition to the plant? To date, 21 municipalities in Ocean County, as well as Congressmen Smith, Saxton and Pallone, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley, and the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, have expressed either their concern for a thorough review and/or their opposition to the re-licensing. • In recent weeks, two studies released by the National Academy of Sciences have raised serious concerns about nuclear plant security and the health effects of low-level radiation upon people who reside near nuclear plants. Should these two scientific studies and other relevant scientific data regarding human health and antiterrorism be taken into account when considering Oyster Creek’s license renewal application? Conclusion The petitioner states that many key factors that affect nuclear plant licensing evolve over time: Population grows, local/state Federal regulations evolve, public awareness increases, PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 54311 technology improves, and plant economic values change. The petitioner believes that all of these factors should be examined and weighed in the formal 10 CFR part 54 relicensing process. Accordingly, the petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations related to license renewal as described previously in the section titled, ‘‘The Proposed Amendment.’’ Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–18192 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2005–22156; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG Model G103 TWIN ASTIR Sailplanes 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 Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG (Grob) Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. This proposed AD would require you to replace the elevator lever, part number (P/N) 103– 3521, with a part of improved design, P/N 103–3523. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent cracks in the elevator lever, which could cause the elevator lever to fail. This failure could result in loss of control of the sailplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by October 14, 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. E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 54312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules • 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 Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG, Letenbachstrasse 9, D– 86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200. To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to https://dms.dot.gov. This is docket number FAA–2005– 22156; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE– 43–AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4130; facsimile: (816) 329–4090. 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–2005–22156; Directorate Identifier 2005-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–2005–22156; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD. 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 VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:58 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 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? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. The LBA reports an instance of elevator level failure on one of the affected sailplanes. Cracks in the elevator lever caused the elevator lever to fail. The cracks are a result of inadequate design in the structural strength and durability. The elevator lever, part number (P/N) 103–3521, is made from the same cast alloy as the airbrake over-center levers, P/Ns 103–4123 (left) and 103–4124 (right), used on Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. Cracks found on these parts caused us to issue AD 97–24–10, which requires replacing P/Ns 103–4123 and 103–4124 with parts of improved design, P/N 103B–4123 and 103B–4124. What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not prevented, cracks in the elevator lever could cause the elevator lever to fail. This failure could result in loss of control of the sailplane. Is there service information that applies to this subject? Grob has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB 315–67/1, dated December 20, 2004. What are the provisions of this service information? The service bulletin specifies replacing elevator lever, P/N 103–3521 made of aluminum cast alloy, with P/N 103–3523 made from sheet aluminum. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 What action did the LBA take? The LBA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued German AD Number D–2004–292R1, dated February 28, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these sailplanes in Germany. Did the LBA inform the United States under the bilateral airworthiness agreement? These Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes are manufactured in Germany and are typecertificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD What has FAA decided? We have examined the LBA’s findings, 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. Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, we are proposing AD action to prevent cracks in the elevator lever, which could cause the elevator lever to fail. This failure could result in loss of control of the sailplane. What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require you to replace P/N 103–3521, aluminum cast alloy elevator lever, with P/N 103–3523, sheet aluminum elevator lever. 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 sailplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 sailplanes in the U.S. registry. What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 54313 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to do this proposed replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per sailplane Total cost on U.S. operators 20 × $65 per hour = $1,300 ............................................................................................ $715 $2,015 $120,900 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 other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘AD Docket FAA–2005–22156; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD’’ in your request. § 39.13 [Amended] List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD? 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG: Docket No. FAA–2005–22156; Directorate Identifier 2005–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 October 14, 2005. What Other ADs Are Affected By This Action? (b) None. What Sailplanes Are Affected By This AD? (c) This AD affects Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category. 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: (d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent cracks in the elevator lever, which could cause the elevator lever to fail. This failure could result in loss of control of the sailplane. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES What Must I Do To Address This Problem? 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: (e) To address this problem, you must do the following: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Actions Compliance Procedures (1) Check the sailplane service history records to determine if part number (P/N) 103–3521, aluminum cast alloy elevator lever, has been replaced with P/N 103–3523, sheet aluminum elevator lever. Within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD. (2) If you can positively determine by checking the sailplane service history records that the replacement specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD has been done, no further action is required. Not applicable ................................................... The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may check the sailplane service history records as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). Not applicable. VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:58 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 54314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules Actions Compliance Procedures (3) If you cannot positively determined by checking the sailplane service history records that the replacement specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD has been done, replace P/N 103–3521 with P/N 103–3523. (4) Do not install any P/N 103–3521, aluminum cast alloy elevator lever. Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD. Following GROB Luft-und Raumfahrt Service Bulletin MSB 315–67/1 dated December 20, 2004. As of the effective date of this AD ................... Not applicable. May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance? DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (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, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4130; facsimile: (816) 329–4090. Federal Aviation Administration Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. • By fax: (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. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus Deutschland G.m.b.H, Customer Service HFB 320, Postfach 95 01 09, D–21111 Hamburg, Germany. You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at https:// dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA–2005– 22401; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2004–NM–93–AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Is There Other Information That Relates to This Subject? (g) German AD Number D–2004–292R1, dated February 28, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD? (h) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG, Letenbachstrasse 9, D–86874 TussenhausenMattsies, Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov. This is docket number FAA–2005–22156; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 8, 2005. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–18205 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:58 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2005–22401; Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–93–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Hamburger Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. Model HFB 320 HANSA Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Hamburger Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. Model HFB 320 HANSA airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit operation of the airplane past its designed life limit for the primary structure, which is 15,000 flight hours or 15,000 fight cycles, whichever occurs first; and to require contacting the FAA for approval of analysis that the airplane is safe to continue operation beyond the designed life limit. This proposed AD is prompted by a report that all airplanes in operation might have met or exceeded the designed life limit for the primary structure. We are proposing this AD to prevent continued operation of an airplane beyond its designed life limit for the primary structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 14, 2005. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses 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 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 2005–22401; Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–93–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those 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 AD. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54311-54314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2005-22156; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-43-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH 
& CO KG Model G103 TWIN ASTIR Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) 
for all Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG (Grob) Model 
G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. This proposed AD would require you to 
replace the elevator lever, part number (P/N) 103-3521, with a part of 
improved design, P/N 103-3523. This proposed AD results from mandatory 
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness 
authority for Germany. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent 
cracks in the elevator lever, which could cause the elevator lever to 
fail. This failure could result in loss of control of the sailplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by October 14, 
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.

[[Page 54312]]

     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 Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG, 
Letenbachstrasse 9, D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany; telephone: 
011 49 8268 998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200.
    To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to https://dms.dot.gov. 
This is docket number FAA-2005-22156; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-
43-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

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-2005-22156; Directorate Identifier 2005-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-2005-22156; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-
43-AD. 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 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? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt 
(LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently 
notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Grob Model G103 
TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. The LBA reports an instance of elevator level 
failure on one of the affected sailplanes. Cracks in the elevator lever 
caused the elevator lever to fail.
    The cracks are a result of inadequate design in the structural 
strength and durability.
    The elevator lever, part number (P/N) 103-3521, is made from the 
same cast alloy as the airbrake over-center levers, P/Ns 103-4123 
(left) and 103-4124 (right), used on Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR 
sailplanes. Cracks found on these parts caused us to issue AD 97-24-10, 
which requires replacing P/Ns 103-4123 and 103-4124 with parts of 
improved design, P/N 103B-4123 and 103B-4124.
    What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not 
prevented, cracks in the elevator lever could cause the elevator lever 
to fail. This failure could result in loss of control of the sailplane.
    Is there service information that applies to this subject? Grob has 
issued Service Bulletin No. MSB 315-67/1, dated December 20, 2004.
    What are the provisions of this service information? The service 
bulletin specifies replacing elevator lever, P/N 103-3521 made of 
aluminum cast alloy, with P/N 103-3523 made from sheet aluminum.
    What action did the LBA take? The LBA classified this service 
bulletin as mandatory and issued German AD Number D-2004-292R1, dated 
February 28, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these 
sailplanes in Germany.
    Did the LBA inform the United States under the bilateral 
airworthiness agreement? These Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes 
are manufactured in Germany and are type-certificated for operation in 
the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral 
airworthiness agreement.
    Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us 
informed of the situation described above.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    What has FAA decided? We have examined the LBA's findings, 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.
    Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist 
or develop on other Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes of the same 
type design that are registered in the United States, we are proposing 
AD action to prevent cracks in the elevator lever, which could cause 
the elevator lever to fail. This failure could result in loss of 
control of the sailplane.
    What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require 
you to replace P/N 103-3521, aluminum cast alloy elevator lever, with 
P/N 103-3523, sheet aluminum elevator lever.
    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 sailplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that 
this proposed AD affects 60 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.
    What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/
operators of the

[[Page 54313]]

affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to do this 
proposed replacement:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total cost per     Total cost  on
                       Labor cost                            Parts cost         sailplane       U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 x $65 per hour = $1,300.............................              $715             $2,015           $120,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and 
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by 
sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include 
``AD Docket FAA-2005-22156; Directorate Identifier 2005-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):

Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG: Docket No. FAA-2005-
22156; Directorate Identifier 2005-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 October 14, 2005.

What Other ADs Are Affected By This Action?

    (b) None.

What Sailplanes Are Affected By This AD?

    (c) This AD affects Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes, all serial 
numbers, that are certificated in any category.

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

    (d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness 
information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for 
Germany. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent 
cracks in the elevator lever, which could cause the elevator lever 
to fail. This failure could result in loss of control of the 
sailplane.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Actions                  Compliance          Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Check the sailplane service   Within the next 25  The owner/operator
 history records to determine if   hours time-in-      holding at least
 part number (P/N) 103-3521,       service (TIS)       a private pilot
 aluminum cast alloy elevator      after the           certificate as
 lever, has been replaced with P/  effective date of   authorized by
 N 103-3523, sheet aluminum        this AD.            section 43.7 of
 elevator lever.                                       the Federal
                                                       Aviation
                                                       Regulations (14
                                                       CFR 43.7) may
                                                       check the
                                                       sailplane service
                                                       history records
                                                       as specified in
                                                       paragraph (e)(1)
                                                       of this AD. Make
                                                       an entry into the
                                                       aircraft records
                                                       showing
                                                       compliance with
                                                       this portion of
                                                       the AD following
                                                       section 43.9 of
                                                       the Federal
                                                       Aviation
                                                       Regulations (14
                                                       CFR 43.9).
(2) If you can positively         Not applicable....  Not applicable.
 determine by checking the
 sailplane service history
 records that the replacement
 specified in paragraph (e)(1)
 of this AD has been done, no
 further action is required.

[[Page 54314]]

 
(3) If you cannot positively      Within the next 25  Following GROB
 determined by checking the        hours TIS after     Luft-und
 sailplane service history         the effective       Raumfahrt Service
 records that the replacement      date of this AD.    Bulletin MSB 315-
 specified in paragraph (e)(1)                         67/1 dated
 of this AD has been done,                             December 20,
 replace P/N 103-3521 with P/N                         2004.
 103-3523.
(4) Do not install any P/N 103-   As of the           Not applicable.
 3521, aluminum cast alloy         effective date of
 elevator lever.                   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, Standards Office, Small 
Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved 
alternative methods of compliance, contact Greg Davison, Aerospace 
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, 
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: 
(816) 329-4090.

Is There Other Information That Relates to This Subject?

    (g) German AD Number D-2004-292R1, dated February 28, 2005, also 
addresses the subject of this AD.

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

    (h) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, 
contact Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG, 
Letenbachstrasse 9, D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany; 
telephone: 011 49 8268 998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200. To 
view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif 
Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov. This is docket number FAA-2005-22156; Directorate 
Identifier 2005-CE-43-AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 8, 2005.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-18205 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.