Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, B-45), and D45 (T-34B) Airplanes, 10909-10918 [07-1106]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations underage almond and walnut trees at all coverage levels by ‘‘we agree in writing’’ under the current Crop Provisions. The commenters state that approved insurance providers would be faced with a difficult and costly task to abide by all documentation requirements for written agreement submissions within the standard 15 business days after the sales closing date and thus result in the insured potentially not getting insurance coverage timely. As a result, the use of the written agreements as a means to provide coverage for production from underage almond and walnut trees would be burdensome to the producer. The commenters also state that producers now have the ability to insure production from underage almond and walnut trees at the catastrophic risk protection (CAT) level. They claim the current proposal would make CAT policies ineligible for this insurance coverage under the written agreement criteria, since written agreements are not available under CAT coverage. The commenters state that the use of ‘‘we agree in writing’’ language allows the approved insurance providers and RO’s to efficiently process the request to insure production from underage almond and walnut trees. Any deviation from this process would be resisted by the AIPs, Regional Office, agents and insureds. Response: FCIC realized that the proposed language would have needlessly imposed a heavy burden on producers, agents, AIPs and ROs. However, the preamble of the policy only allows deviation from the policy terms if allowed by written agreement. Therefore, use of the term ‘‘agree in writing’’ is not a viable solution. Instead, FCIC has amended the language to state coverage on production from under-aged trees is allowed if provided for in the Special Provisions. This change will provide insurance coverage for production from under-aged trees without the need to have a written agreement. This will also allow coverage to be available at all buy-up coverage levels and at the CAT level of coverage. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES Crop insurance, Walnut and Almond, Reporting and record keeping requirements. Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457, Common Crop Insurance Regulations, for the 2008 and succeeding crop years as follows: I VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 10909 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p). 14 CFR Part 39 I [Docket No. FAA–2006–25105; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD; Amendment 39– 14982; AD 2007–06–01] I RIN 2120–AA64 2. Amend § 457.122 as follows: A. Revise the first sentence of the introductory text. I B. Revise paragraph 6(d). The revisions to § 457.122 read as follows: § 457.122 Walnut crop insurance provisions. The Walnut Crop Insurance Provisions for the 2008 and succeeding crop years are as follows: * * * * * 6. Insured Crop * * * * * (d) On acreage where at least 90 percent of the trees have reached at least the seventh growing season after being set out, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. * * * * * 3. Amend § 457.123 as follows: A. Revise the first sentence of the introductory text. I B. Revise paragraph 6(e). The revisions to § 457.123 read as follows: I I § 457.123 Almond crop insurance provisions. The Almond Crop Insurance Provisions for the 2008 and succeeding crop years are as follows: * * * * * 6. Insured Crop * * * * * (e) On acreage where at least 90 percent of the trees have reached at least the sixth growing season after being set out, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. * * * * * Signed in Washington, DC, on March 6, 2007. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E7–4333 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–08–P PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 (T–34B) Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) that supersedes AD 62–24–01, which applies to all Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B45), and D45 (T–34B) airplanes. AD 62–24–01 currently requires you to repetitively inspect, using the dye penetrant method, the front and rear horizontal stabilizer spars for cracks and replace any cracked stabilizer. Since we issued AD 62–24–01, we determined that using the dye penetrant inspection method may not detect cracks before the crack grows to a critical length and causes failure of the horizontal stabilizer spars. Therefore, we are requiring the surface eddy current inspection method to detect cracks in the horizontal stabilizer spars. Consequently, this AD retains the actions required in AD 62– 24–01 and changes the required inspection method from dye penetrant to surface eddy current. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front and/or rear horizontal stabilizer spars caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could result in stabilizer separation and loss of control of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: 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 20590– 001 or on the Internet at http:// dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA–2006–25105; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4155; fax: (316) 946–4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Discussion On July 24, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all RAC Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T– 34A, B45), and D45 (T–34B) airplanes. That proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 31, 2006 (71 FR 43075). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 62–24–01 with a new AD that would retain the actions required in AD 62–24–01 and only change the inspection procedure from the dye penetrant method to the surface eddy current method. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA’s response to each comment: hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES Comment Issue No. 1: Change the Compliance Time for the Initial Inspection Larry Bierma, Joe Enzminger, John Aldous, Michael Vadeboncoeur, John Rippinger, William E. Mayher, Dan Thomas, and Victor Barrett state that the inspection compliance in the proposed AD is a duplication of the inspection for those who have done the eddy current inspection recently as part of compliance with an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2004–25– 51. The commenters state that requiring another eddy current inspection within 6 months after the effective date of this AD would be unnecessary and economically burdensome for those who have already done it. The commenters request credit for the last inspection done in compliance with an AMOC to AD 2004–25–51 as compliance for the initial inspection required in the proposed AD. We have rewritten the compliance time to give full credit for previously accomplished eddy current inspections done in the area affected by this AD. Comment Issue No. 2: AD Is Not Necessary Michael Vadeboncoeur, John Aldous, Mike Talbot, Eric Evans, Earle Parks, Floyd Stilwell, Dan Thomas, Stephen Baksa, William Beitler, and Terrance Brennan state that, since the time AD 62–24–01 was issued, there have not been any accidents as a result of cracks in the horizontal stabilizer. The commenters request the proposed AD be withdrawn. The commenters also request that stabilizer spars modified by Parks VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 Industries supplemental type certificate (STC) either be exempt from the inspections or the inspection interval be increased to 1,000 hours TIS. We do not agree with the commenters. In 2005, 148 of the affected airplanes were eddy current inspected. Cracks in the stabilizer spars and/or spar webs were found on 6 of these airplanes, which required the spars to be replaced. If no eddy current inspections had been done, those cracks may have grown and reached critical crack lengths, which could have compromised the integrity of the spar structure. In order to increase the inspection interval or eliminate the spar inspections, we need supporting engineering analysis data regarding fatigue life, crack growth rate, etc. We have not received such data for the spars modified by the Parks Industries STC. If we receive engineering analysis data that supports increasing the inspection intervals or eliminating the inspections, we may take additional rulemaking action at that time. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 3: Retain the Dye Penetrant Inspection From AD 62–24– 01 Floyd Stilwell, Earle Parks, and Terrance Brennan state that the surface eddy current inspection is expensive and inconvenient. Qualified technicians to do the surface eddy current inspections have to be brought to the repair station from other parts of the country, which contributes to the expense of doing the eddy current inspection. The commenters request retaining the dye penetrant inspection. We do not agree with the commenters. AD 2001–13–18 R1 currently requires owners/operators of all Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 (T–34B) airplanes to do repetitive 80-hour TIS eddy current inspections of the wing spar assemblies and other components following Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 57–3329, Part II, Page 3/65, Issued: February, 2000. If the wing spar and stabilizer spar inspections are properly planned, these two inspections could be done at the same time. This planning would eliminate any extra expenses. We have reason to believe that damage tolerance analysis of the stabilizer spar is being conducted by some owners. This may result in additional rulemaking action that could eliminate the inspection or increase the inspection interval. Until that time, AMOCs for this AD may be approved, PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 4: Surface Eddy Current Inspection Method Unwarranted Dan Thomas, William Beitler, Floyd Stilwell, William Mayher, and Mike Talbot state that the eddy current inspection method is no better than the dye penetrant method for detecting cracks. The level of safety will not be enhanced by changing the inspection methods. Further, the eddy current method could produce false positives and the frequent inspections could also incur damage to the stabilizer spar. The commenters request the method of inspection be at the owner’s/operator’s option. We do not agree with the commenters. The eddy current inspection method is a more sensitive inspection process. The dye penetrant inspection method at times could completely miss detecting the cracks. All inspection methods have some inherent drawbacks. Eddy current inspection methods detect small surface cracks better than dye penetrant methods, and eddy current inspection methods are also capable of detecting subsurface cracks. Detection of cracks early is a definite advantage. Eddy current inspection methods could occasionally produce false positives; however, this could be avoided if cracks are confirmed by repeatable flaw indications. If the inspections required by this AD are carefully done by qualified technicians, any damage to the spars could be prevented. The 500-hour TIS repetitive inspection interval is a long interval between inspections for this type of airplane, which normally will take place once in 5 years or longer in most cases; therefore, we do not consider this inspection requirement as frequent. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10911 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 475 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to accomplish each inspection: Total cost per airplane Labor cost Parts cost 8 work-hours × $80 per hour = $640 ........................................................ Total cost on U.S. operators $640 $304,000 Not applicable .................................. We estimate the following costs to do any necessary horizontal stabilizer replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 ............................................................................................ Cost Difference Between This AD and AD 62–24–01 The only difference between this AD and AD 62–24–01 is the change of inspection method. There may be some minimal additional cost involved in doing the eddy current inspection because of possible equipment rentals necessary. No additional actions are being required. We have determined that this AD action does not increase the cost impact over that already required by AD 62–24–01. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 Total cost per airplane Parts cost For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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 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 ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2006–25105; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD’’ in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 $3,500 $3,820 2006–25105; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE– 33–AD. Effective Date (a) This AD becomes effective on April 16, 2007. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 62–24–01, Amendment 39–508. Applicability (c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Model Beech 45 (YT–34) ................ Beech A45 (T34A, B–45) ..... Beech D45 (T–34B) .............. Serial numbers All All All Unsafe Condition I (d) This AD results from our determination that the surface eddy current inspection method should be used in place of the dye penetrant inspection method currently required in AD 62–24–01. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front and/or rear horizontal stabilizer spars caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could result in stabilizer separation and loss of control of the airplane. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES Compliance Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 62–24–01, Amendment 39–508, and adding the following new AD: I 2007–06–01 Raytheon Aircraft Company: Amendment 39–14982; Docket No. FAA– PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (e) Using the surface eddy current inspection procedures outlined in the appendix of this AD, inspect the front and rear horizontal stabilizer spars between the butt rib and the inboard end for cracks, unless already done, as follows: (1) If the last inspection of the front and rear horizontal stabilizer spars was done using the surface eddy current method (or FAA-approved equivalent method) to show compliance with E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations AD 62–24–01 and/or to show compliance with the alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2004–25– 51: Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours timein-service (TIS). (2) If the last inspection of the front and rear horizontal stabilizer spars required by AD 62–24–01 was done using the dye penetrant method: Inspect initially as presented in the table below and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS: If Then (i) Less than 200 hours TIS have passed since the last inspection required by AD 62– 24–01: hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES (ii) If 200 hours TIS or more have passed since the last inspection required by AD–24–01: VerDate Aug<31>2005 Inspect at whichever of the following occurs later: (A) Upon accumulating 200 hours TIS since the last inspection required by AD 62–24–01; or (B) Within the next 6 months after April 16, 2007. (the effective date of this AD). Inspect at whichever of the following occurs first, unless paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this AD applies, as specified below: (A) At the next repetitive inspection required by AD 62– 24–01; or (B) Within the next 6 months after April 16, 2007 (the effective date of this AD). 18:03 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 If Then (iii) If paragraph (e)(2)(ii) results in the initial surface eddy current inspection becoming mandatory within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect within the next 30 days after April 16, 2007. (the effective date of this AD). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4155; fax: (316) 946–4107, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (g) AMOCs approved for AD 62–24– 01 are approved for this AD. Appendix to AD 2007–06–01 Surface Eddy Current Inspection Procedure Note: This surface eddy current inspection procedure is based on T–34 Spar Corporation TSC 3506, Rev C, dated May 10, 2005. The T–34 Spar Corporation is allowing the use of this procedure to be included in this Airworthiness Directive. Alternative methods of compliance procedures will be allowed, if approved by the Wichita Aircraft Certification Office and requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Purpose: This procedure is to be used to detect cracks in the inner and outer spars of the front and rear spar assemblies of Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 (T– 34B) airplane stabilizers outside of the steel bushings in the attach holes. Area To Be Inspected: To access the area of inspection, remove the stabilizer from the airplane. The areas to be inspected include the forward and aft surfaces of the inner and outer front and rear spars of the horizontal stabilizers in the areas surrounding each of the attach holes. Preparing the Area for Inspection: Thoroughly clean area to be inspected with PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 solvent (acetone or equivalent) as required until no signs of dirt, grime, or oil remain on the front and rear spars from the closeout former inboard on the forward and aft surfaces of the spars. Surfaces to be inspected should be smooth and corrosion-free. Any loss of thickness due to corrosion below material thickness tolerance is cause for rejection of the structure. An ultrasonic tester may be used to determine if material thickness has been compromised. Equipment Requirements: Nortec Stavely 2000D Eddy Current Tester or equivalent. Probe: 50–500 KHz, shielded, absolute, 0.071’’ diameter (0.090 max. diameter), right angle, pencil style, surface probe, 5 long, 1⁄2″ drop or equivalent. Use 0.025″ notch (beyond head) for calibration Personal Requirements: Technicians with Eddy Current, Level II or Level III per one of the following specifications: ATA specification 105, SNT–TC–1A, or NAS–410 (MIL–std 410E). Methods: Typical Set-up Parameters: Frequency–350 KHz, Gain Vertical–75 dB, Horizontal–69 dB, Drive-Mid, Filters– Lo Pass–30, Hi Pass–0, Lift off-Horizontal to the left, adjust as required. The most reliable indication (minimum of 11⁄2 to 2 graticules) of the smallest observable flaw in the coupon (see the attached Figures) occurs from the notch extending 0.025″ past the edge of the nominal fastener head (total notch length of 0.100″ from the edge of the nominal hole). Install appropriate aluminum guide pin into bushing such that the edge of the guide pin is flush with the edge of the bushing. Using the pin (see the attached Figures) as a guide, circle the area surrounding the steel bushing with the probe and adjacent area (approximately 1⁄4’’) to inspect for cracks. Inspect forward and aft surfaces surrounding bushings of each spar. Note: T–34 Spar Corporation, 2800 Airport Road, Hanger A, Ada, Oklahoma, 74820 is a source for these coupons and pin. Accept/Reject Criteria: Any repeatable flaw indication is cause for rejection in accordance with the procedure. In the event that any crack is detected, describe the flaw in detail providing sketch as needed and send the information to the Wichita ACO. Documentation Requirements: Record inspection findings in the aircraft logbook. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10913 ER12mr07.003</GPH> hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations VerDate Aug<31>2005 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 ER12mr07.004</GPH> hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES 10914 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10915 ER12mr07.005</GPH> hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations VerDate Aug<31>2005 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 ER12mr07.006</GPH> hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES 10916 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10917 ER12mr07.007</GPH> hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10918 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 5, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 07–1106 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2005–20850; Directorate Identifier 2005–NE–05–AD; Amendment 39– 14976; AD 2007–05–15] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne Continental Motors GTSIO–520 Series Reciprocating Engines Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) GTSIO–520 series reciprocating engines. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive visual inspections of the starter adapter assembly and crankshaft gear and unscheduled visual inspections of the starter adapter assembly and crankshaft gear due to a rough-running engine. That AD also requires replacement of the starter adapter shaft gear needle bearing with a certain bushing and installation of a certain TCM service kit at the next engine overhaul, or at the next starter adapter replacement, whichever occurs first. This AD requires performing the inspection ordered in paragraph (h) of this AD every 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), or annually. This proposed AD results from an error discovered in AD 2005–20–04. We are issuing this AD to failure of the starter adapter assembly and or crankshaft gear, resulting in failure of the engine and possible forced landing. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 16, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of April 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., PO Box 90, Mobile, AL 36601; telephone (251) 438–3411. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Robinette, Senior Engineer, Propulsion, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Blvd., Suite 450, Atlanta, GA 30349; telephone: (770) 703–6096, fax: (770) 703–6097. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to TCM GTSIO–520 series reciprocating engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on October 26, 2006, (71 FR 62570). That action proposed to require performing the inspection ordered in paragraph (h) of AD 2005–20–04 every 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), or annually to correct an error that required the inspection at every 100-hour inspection. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment[s] received. Remove the Requirement for a Placard Two commenters propose dropping the placard from the requirements of the proposed AD. The commenters do not believe the placard is necessary. We agree. It appears the commenters are basing their comment on the original notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that we issued on April 6, 2005, not the current NPRM. We received comments to the original NPRM similar to these comments and removed the requirement to add a placard before we issued AD 2005–20–05. We didn’t change this AD. Request to Change the Required Inspection The same two commenters request we mandate a more detailed inspection for the components. The commenters state that a visual inspection might not be sufficient. We don’t agree. The commenters didn’t specify any PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 additional inspections. We consider a visual inspection the best method to detect abnormal surface wear. We don’t have any requirement for nondestructive testing because we have no indication of subsurface deterioration. We didn’t change the AD. Request To Perform Additional Economic Assessment One commenter asks us to perform additional economic assessment. The commenter states we didn’t consider the economic effects on other small entities. We don’t agree. We used our current procedures to consider the economic effects of this action. We didn’t change the AD. Editorial Changes To Improve Clarity and Correct an Omission We changed paragraph (f) of this AD from ‘‘If, during an inspection * * * crankcase, replace it with a serviceable bushing before reassembling components’’ to ‘‘(f) If, during an inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, you find needle bearing, part number (P/N) 537721, installed in the crankcase, replace it with a serviceable bushing, P/N 654472 or equivalent FAA approved bearing, before reassembling components’’ to clarify the intent of that requirement. We also added paragraph (h)(3) to make the compliance times in that requirement consistent with paragraph (i)(3). Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 4,240 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about one work-hour per engine to perform the inspection, about one work-hour per engine to perform the proposed bushing installation and about six work-hours per engine to install the TCM service kit. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. We estimate that about 25 percent of the engines will require an unscheduled (rough-running engine) inspection and about half of the engines will require the bushing and TCM service kit. Required bushings would cost about $16 per engine and service kits about $800 per engine. Based on these figures, we E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10909-10918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25105; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-33-AD; 
Amendment 39-14982; AD 2007-06-01]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models 
45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, B-45), and D45 (T-34B) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) that 
supersedes AD 62-24-01, which applies to all Raytheon Aircraft Company 
(RAC) Beech Models 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, B45), and D45 (T-34B) 
airplanes. AD 62-24-01 currently requires you to repetitively inspect, 
using the dye penetrant method, the front and rear horizontal 
stabilizer spars for cracks and replace any cracked stabilizer. Since 
we issued AD 62-24-01, we determined that using the dye penetrant 
inspection method may not detect cracks before the crack grows to a 
critical length and causes failure of the horizontal stabilizer spars. 
Therefore, we are requiring the surface eddy current inspection method 
to detect cracks in the horizontal stabilizer spars. Consequently, this 
AD retains the actions required in AD 62-24-01 and changes the required 
inspection method from dye penetrant to surface eddy current. We are 
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front and/or rear horizontal 
stabilizer spars caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could result in 
stabilizer separation and loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: 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 20590-001 or on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA-2006-25105; Directorate 
Identifier 2006-CE-33-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent 
Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; fax: (316) 
946-4107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 10910]]

Discussion

    On July 24, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that 
would apply to all RAC Beech Models 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, B45), and 
D45 (T-34B) airplanes. That proposal was published in the Federal 
Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 31, 2006 (71 
FR 43075). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 62-24-01 with a new AD 
that would retain the actions required in AD 62-24-01 and only change 
the inspection procedure from the dye penetrant method to the surface 
eddy current method.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
and FAA's response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Change the Compliance Time for the Initial 
Inspection

    Larry Bierma, Joe Enzminger, John Aldous, Michael Vadeboncoeur, 
John Rippinger, William E. Mayher, Dan Thomas, and Victor Barrett state 
that the inspection compliance in the proposed AD is a duplication of 
the inspection for those who have done the eddy current inspection 
recently as part of compliance with an alternative method of compliance 
(AMOC) to AD 2004-25-51.
    The commenters state that requiring another eddy current inspection 
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD would be 
unnecessary and economically burdensome for those who have already done 
it. The commenters request credit for the last inspection done in 
compliance with an AMOC to AD 2004-25-51 as compliance for the initial 
inspection required in the proposed AD.
    We have rewritten the compliance time to give full credit for 
previously accomplished eddy current inspections done in the area 
affected by this AD.

Comment Issue No. 2: AD Is Not Necessary

    Michael Vadeboncoeur, John Aldous, Mike Talbot, Eric Evans, Earle 
Parks, Floyd Stilwell, Dan Thomas, Stephen Baksa, William Beitler, and 
Terrance Brennan state that, since the time AD 62-24-01 was issued, 
there have not been any accidents as a result of cracks in the 
horizontal stabilizer. The commenters request the proposed AD be 
withdrawn.
    The commenters also request that stabilizer spars modified by Parks 
Industries supplemental type certificate (STC) either be exempt from 
the inspections or the inspection interval be increased to 1,000 hours 
TIS.
    We do not agree with the commenters. In 2005, 148 of the affected 
airplanes were eddy current inspected. Cracks in the stabilizer spars 
and/or spar webs were found on 6 of these airplanes, which required the 
spars to be replaced. If no eddy current inspections had been done, 
those cracks may have grown and reached critical crack lengths, which 
could have compromised the integrity of the spar structure.
    In order to increase the inspection interval or eliminate the spar 
inspections, we need supporting engineering analysis data regarding 
fatigue life, crack growth rate, etc. We have not received such data 
for the spars modified by the Parks Industries STC.
    If we receive engineering analysis data that supports increasing 
the inspection intervals or eliminating the inspections, we may take 
additional rulemaking action at that time.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 3: Retain the Dye Penetrant Inspection From AD 62-24-
01

    Floyd Stilwell, Earle Parks, and Terrance Brennan state that the 
surface eddy current inspection is expensive and inconvenient. 
Qualified technicians to do the surface eddy current inspections have 
to be brought to the repair station from other parts of the country, 
which contributes to the expense of doing the eddy current inspection. 
The commenters request retaining the dye penetrant inspection.
    We do not agree with the commenters. AD 2001-13-18 R1 currently 
requires owners/operators of all Beech Models 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, 
B-45), and D45 (T-34B) airplanes to do repetitive 80-hour TIS eddy 
current inspections of the wing spar assemblies and other components 
following Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 57-3329, 
Part II, Page 3/65, Issued: February, 2000. If the wing spar and 
stabilizer spar inspections are properly planned, these two inspections 
could be done at the same time. This planning would eliminate any extra 
expenses.
    We have reason to believe that damage tolerance analysis of the 
stabilizer spar is being conducted by some owners. This may result in 
additional rulemaking action that could eliminate the inspection or 
increase the inspection interval. Until that time, AMOCs for this AD 
may be approved, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
39.19.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 4: Surface Eddy Current Inspection Method Unwarranted

    Dan Thomas, William Beitler, Floyd Stilwell, William Mayher, and 
Mike Talbot state that the eddy current inspection method is no better 
than the dye penetrant method for detecting cracks. The level of safety 
will not be enhanced by changing the inspection methods. Further, the 
eddy current method could produce false positives and the frequent 
inspections could also incur damage to the stabilizer spar. The 
commenters request the method of inspection be at the owner's/
operator's option.
    We do not agree with the commenters. The eddy current inspection 
method is a more sensitive inspection process. The dye penetrant 
inspection method at times could completely miss detecting the cracks.
    All inspection methods have some inherent drawbacks. Eddy current 
inspection methods detect small surface cracks better than dye 
penetrant methods, and eddy current inspection methods are also capable 
of detecting subsurface cracks. Detection of cracks early is a definite 
advantage. Eddy current inspection methods could occasionally produce 
false positives; however, this could be avoided if cracks are confirmed 
by repeatable flaw indications.
    If the inspections required by this AD are carefully done by 
qualified technicians, any damage to the spars could be prevented.
    The 500-hour TIS repetitive inspection interval is a long interval 
between inspections for this type of airplane, which normally will take 
place once in 5 years or longer in most cases; therefore, we do not 
consider this inspection requirement as frequent.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that 
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed 
except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these 
minor corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM.

[[Page 10911]]

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 475 airplanes in the U.S. 
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to accomplish each inspection:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Total cost per   Total cost on
                  Labor cost                               Parts cost                airplane     U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $80 per hour = $640............  Not applicable..................            $640        $304,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary horizontal 
stabilizer replacements that will be required based on the results of 
the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes 
that may need this replacement:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total cost per
                            Labor cost                                       Parts cost              airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $80 per hour = $320................................                        $3,500          $3,820
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost Difference Between This AD and AD 62-24-01

    The only difference between this AD and AD 62-24-01 is the change 
of inspection method. There may be some minimal additional cost 
involved in doing the eddy current inspection because of possible 
equipment rentals necessary. No additional actions are being required. 
We have determined that this AD action does not increase the cost 
impact over that already required by AD 62-24-01.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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 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 ``Docket 
No. FAA-2006-25105; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-33-AD'' in your 
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 
62-24-01, Amendment 39-508, and adding the following new AD:

    2007-06-01 Raytheon Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-14982; Docket 
No. FAA-2006-25105; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-33-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on April 16, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 62-24-01, Amendment 39-508.

Applicability

    (c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial 
numbers that are certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Serial
                          Model                               numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beech 45 (YT-34)........................................             All
Beech A45 (T34A, B-45)..................................             All
Beech D45 (T-34B).......................................             All
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from our determination that the surface eddy 
current inspection method should be used in place of the dye penetrant 
inspection method currently required in AD 62-24-01. We are issuing 
this AD to prevent failure of the front and/or rear horizontal 
stabilizer spars caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could result in 
stabilizer separation and loss of control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) Using the surface eddy current inspection procedures outlined 
in the appendix of this AD, inspect the front and rear horizontal 
stabilizer spars between the butt rib and the inboard end for cracks, 
unless already done, as follows:
    (1) If the last inspection of the front and rear horizontal 
stabilizer spars was done using the surface eddy current method (or 
FAA-approved equivalent method) to show compliance with

[[Page 10912]]

AD 62-24-01 and/or to show compliance with the alternative method of 
compliance (AMOC) to AD 2004-25-51: Repetitively inspect thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-in-service (TIS).
    (2) If the last inspection of the front and rear horizontal 
stabilizer spars required by AD 62-24-01 was done using the dye 
penetrant method: Inspect initially as presented in the table below and 
repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    If                                  Then
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Less than 200 hours TIS have passed     Inspect at whichever of the
 since the last inspection required by AD    following occurs later:
 62-24-01:
                                            (A) Upon accumulating 200
                                             hours TIS since the last
                                             inspection required by AD
                                             62-24-01; or
                                            (B) Within the next 6 months
                                             after April 16, 2007. (the
                                             effective date of this AD).
(ii) If 200 hours TIS or more have passed   Inspect at whichever of the
 since the last inspection required by AD-   following occurs first,
 24-01:                                      unless paragraph
                                             (e)(2)(iii) of this AD
                                             applies, as specified
                                             below:
                                            (A) At the next repetitive
                                             inspection required by AD
                                             62-24-01; or
                                            (B) Within the next 6 months
                                             after April 16, 2007 (the
                                             effective date of this AD).
(iii) If paragraph (e)(2)(ii) results in    Inspect within the next 30
 the initial surface eddy current            days after April 16, 2007.
 inspection becoming mandatory within 30     (the effective date of this
 days after the effective date of this AD:   AD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: 
T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent 
Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; fax: (316) 
946-4107, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (g) AMOCs approved for AD 62-24-01 are approved for this AD.

Appendix to AD 2007-06-01

Surface Eddy Current Inspection Procedure

    Note: This surface eddy current inspection procedure is based on 
T-34 Spar Corporation TSC 3506, Rev C, dated May 10, 2005. The T-34 
Spar Corporation is allowing the use of this procedure to be 
included in this Airworthiness Directive. Alternative methods of 
compliance procedures will be allowed, if approved by the Wichita 
Aircraft Certification Office and requested using the procedures 
found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    Purpose: This procedure is to be used to detect cracks in the 
inner and outer spars of the front and rear spar assemblies of 
Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, B-
45), and D45 (T-34B) airplane stabilizers outside of the steel 
bushings in the attach holes.
    Area To Be Inspected: To access the area of inspection, remove 
the stabilizer from the airplane. The areas to be inspected include 
the forward and aft surfaces of the inner and outer front and rear 
spars of the horizontal stabilizers in the areas surrounding each of 
the attach holes.
    Preparing the Area for Inspection: Thoroughly clean area to be 
inspected with solvent (acetone or equivalent) as required until no 
signs of dirt, grime, or oil remain on the front and rear spars from 
the closeout former inboard on the forward and aft surfaces of the 
spars.
    Surfaces to be inspected should be smooth and corrosion-free. 
Any loss of thickness due to corrosion below material thickness 
tolerance is cause for rejection of the structure. An ultrasonic 
tester may be used to determine if material thickness has been 
compromised.
    Equipment Requirements: Nortec Stavely 2000D Eddy Current Tester 
or equivalent.
    Probe: 50-500 KHz, shielded, absolute, 0.071'' diameter (0.090 
max. diameter), right angle, pencil style, surface probe, 5 long, 
\1/2\'' drop or equivalent. Use 0.025'' notch (beyond head) for 
calibration
    Personal Requirements: Technicians with Eddy Current, Level II 
or Level III per one of the following specifications: ATA 
specification 105, SNT-TC-1A, or NAS-410 (MIL-std 410E).
    Methods: Typical Set-up Parameters:
    Frequency-350 KHz, Gain Vertical-75 dB, Horizontal-69 dB, Drive-
Mid, Filters- Lo Pass-30, Hi Pass-0, Lift off-Horizontal to the 
left, adjust as required. The most reliable indication (minimum of 
1\1/2\ to 2 graticules) of the smallest observable flaw in the 
coupon (see the attached Figures) occurs from the notch extending 
0.025'' past the edge of the nominal fastener head (total notch 
length of 0.100'' from the edge of the nominal hole). Install 
appropriate aluminum guide pin into bushing such that the edge of 
the guide pin is flush with the edge of the bushing. Using the pin 
(see the attached Figures) as a guide, circle the area surrounding 
the steel bushing with the probe and adjacent area (approximately 
\1/4\'') to inspect for cracks. Inspect forward and aft surfaces 
surrounding bushings of each spar.

    Note: T-34 Spar Corporation, 2800 Airport Road, Hanger A, Ada, 
Oklahoma, 74820 is a source for these coupons and pin.

    Accept/Reject Criteria: Any repeatable flaw indication is cause 
for rejection in accordance with the procedure. In the event that 
any crack is detected, describe the flaw in detail providing sketch 
as needed and send the information to the Wichita ACO.
    Documentation Requirements: Record inspection findings in the 
aircraft logbook.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 10913]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR07.003


[[Page 10914]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR07.004


[[Page 10915]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR07.005


[[Page 10916]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR07.006


[[Page 10917]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MR07.007



[[Page 10918]]


    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 5, 2007.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 07-1106 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C