Airworthiness Directives; Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Airplanes; Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 64417-64419 [2013-25526]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
The Proposed Special Conditions
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of
the type certification basis for Airbus
Model A350–900 series airplanes in lieu
of § 25.503:
1. The main landing gear and
supporting structure must be designed
for the loads induced by pivoting during
ground maneuvers.
(a) The following rational pivoting
maneuvers must be considered:
(i) Towing at the nose gear at the
critical towing angle with no brakes
applied, including cases with torque
links disconnected; and separately,
(ii) Application of symmetrical or
unsymmetrical forward thrust to aid
pivoting, with or without braking by
pilot action on the pedals.
(b) The airplane is assumed to be in
static equilibrium, with the loads being
applied at the ground contact points.
(c) The limit vertical load factor must
be 1.0, and:
(i) For wheels with brakes applied,
the coefficient of friction must be 0.8,
(ii) For wheels with brakes not
applied, the ground tire reactions must
be based on reliable tire data.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 12, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–25398 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0393; Directorate
Identifier 2012–CE–025–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC Airplanes;
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Availability of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
availability of and request for comments
on the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for the previously published
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–09–
05 that applies to certain Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC Models 690,
690A, and 690B airplanes. AD 2013–09–
05 requires inspection for cracking of
the outer fuselage attachments, the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
lower wing main spar, the vertical
channels, the upper picture window
channels, aft cabin pressure web,
external wing to fuselage fillets, and
fasteners; repair or replacement of
damaged parts as necessary; and
modification of the structure with
reinforced parts.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 13, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), Airframe Branch, ANM–
120S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057; telephone: (425) 917–6426;
fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
kathleen.arrigotti@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued AD 2013–09–05;
Amendment 39–17446, which was
published in the Federal Register on
May 14, 2013 (78 FR 28125) (‘‘AD 2013–
09–05’’), to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
add an AD that would apply to the
specified products. AD 2013–09–05
requires inspection for cracking of the
outer fuselage attachments, the lower
wing main spar, the vertical channels,
the upper picture window channels, aft
cabin pressure web, external wing to
fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or
replacement of damaged parts as
necessary; and modification of the
structure with reinforced parts.
Reason for This Action
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64417
regulation.’’ To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration. The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a proposed or final
rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In accordance with Section 608
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an
agency head may waive or delay
completion of some or all of the
requirements of Section 603 by
providing a written finding that the final
rule is being promulgated in response to
an emergency that makes compliance or
timely compliance with the provisions
of Section 603 impracticable. The
agency issued AD 2013–09–05 in
response to an immediate safety of flight
condition that made compliance with
the provisions of Section 603
impracticable. After issuing AD 2013–
09–05, the agency reviewed the AD
actions and determined that the final
rule did have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following presents the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
prepared by the agency as described in
the RFA.
1. Reason for Agency Action
We issued AD 2013–09–05 for certain
Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Models
690, 690A, and 690B airplanes. The AD
requires inspection for cracking of the
outer fuselage attachments, the lower
wing main spar, the vertical channels,
the upper picture window channels, aft
cabin pressure web, external wing to
fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or
replacement of damaged parts as
necessary; and modification of the
structure with reinforced parts. The AD
was prompted by cracks found in the
upper picture window frame channels,
left- and right-hand wing main spar
frame support channels, and aft
pressure bulkhead web. This condition,
if not corrected, could result in
structural failure of the airplane. We
issued the AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.
2. Legal Basis and Objectives of the
Final Rule
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
E:\FR\FM\29OCP1.SGM
29OCP1
64418
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We issued the AD 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 the AD.
3. Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Final Rule
Compliance
Compliance with AD 2013–09–05
must occur within the times specified,
unless already done.
Inspection
Inspect the airplane structural
components, at the compliance times
specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(g)(1)(iv) of the AD following Part I of
Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Service
Bulletin 241, September 26, 2012:
• For airplanes with 10,000 or more
hours time-in-service (TIS), inspect
within the next 30 days after May 29,
2013 (the effective date of the AD).
• For airplanes with 7,500 through
9,999 hours TIS, inspect within the next
60 days after May 29, 2013 (the effective
date of the AD).
• For airplanes with 5,000 through
7,499 hours TIS, inspect within the next
6 months after May 29, 2013 (the
effective date of the AD).
• For airplanes with less than 5,000
hours TIS, inspect when the airplane
accumulates a total of 5,000 hours TIS
or within the next 12 months after May
29, 2013 (the effective date of the AD),
whichever occurs later.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Repair
If any damage, cracks, and/or cracks
that exceed the allowable limits
specified in the service bulletin are
found during the inspection required in
paragraph (g)(1) of the AD, before
further flight, repair or replace parts as
necessary following Twin Commander
Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241,
dated, September 26, 2012. If Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC Service
Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012,
does not give procedures for repair of
the damaged area, before further flight,
you must contact Twin Commander
Aircraft LLC to obtain repair
instructions approved by the Seattle
ACO specifically for compliance with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
this AD and incorporate those
instructions. You can find contact
information for Twin Commander
Aircraft LLC in paragraph (l)(2) of the
AD.
Modification and Reassembly
• Before further flight after
completing the actions in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of the AD, modify and
reassemble the airplane using the
modification and reassembly procedures
in Part II of Twin Commander Aircraft
LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated,
September 26, 2012.
• Although Twin Commander
Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated
September 26, 2012, states that at least
one person on the modification team
must have completed the Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC approved
training, the FAA does not require that
a mechanic complete this specialized
training to do the modification work
required in the AD. Regulations 14 CFR
65.81(a) and 14 CFR 65.81(b) provide
criteria about qualifications of those
performing maintenance; in this case,
the requirements of the AD.
4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Final Rule
There are no rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with AD 2013–09–
05.
5. Description and Estimation of the
Number of Small Entities Affected by
the Final Rule
Under the RFA, the FAA must
determine whether a final rule
significantly affects a substantial
number of small entities. This
determination is typically based on
small entity size and revenue thresholds
that vary depending on the affected
industry. To determine the number of
small entities affected by the
airworthiness directive, we searched the
FAA Aircraft Registry database. The
database provides ownership
information for 175 of the airplanes
affected by AD 2013–09–05, and average
airplane values for these airplanes are
available in the Aircraft Bluebook Price
Digest.
The FAA aircraft registry categorizes
owners of affected airplanes as
individuals, co-owners, corporations,
and governments. A review of the
corporations shows that an
overwhelming majority are privately
held. In most cases, the information
about these corporations cannot be
determined because financial and
employment data for privately held
entities is sparse. Nevertheless, the FAA
believes the number of small business
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
entities affected by the AD is
substantial.
The serial numbers for the 175
affected airplanes that we have
information on was used to look up
average retail values in the Aircraft
Bluebook Price Digest. The ‘‘Digest’’
provides average retail values by model,
year, and serial number. It is only a
guide since the actual condition and
upgrades to individual airplanes are not
known. The value range for the 175
affected airplanes is between $225,000
and $555,000 per airplane. The range is
primarily due to age (i.e., the older an
airplane the lower its retail value versus
a newer model of the same airplane).
The total retail value of the affected
airplanes is equal to the sum of the
retail value for each individual airplane.
This summation equals $78.9 million
(or an average of about $451,000 per
airplane).
The economic impact on small
entities due to the AD is significant.
This determination is based on the
percentage of the cost of compliance per
airplane ($58,090) to the average retail
value per airplane ($451,000), which is
estimated to be 12.9 percent.
Based on the discussion above,
complying with the AD is determined to
be significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
6. Alternatives Considered
The FAA considered possible
alternative actions and determined the
actions taken were necessary to address
the unsafe condition. The FAA did not
extend the compliance time because we
needed to act immediately to address
the immediate safety problem. The
inspection and modification both
involve a complex disassembly that
comprises most of the labor cost
associated with the AD. Performing the
modification while the airplane is
already disassembled for inspection
saves owners the labor cost of
disassembling twice. If discrepancies
are not found in the inspection, no
repair expense, beyond the mandated
modification expense, will occur.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
from establishing standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standard has a
E:\FR\FM\29OCP1.SGM
29OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
legitimate domestic objective, such as
the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. The FAA assessed the
potential effect of the AD and
determined that because it addresses an
immediate safety issue the AD is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more (in
1995 dollars) in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of
$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
The AD does not contain such a
mandate; therefore, the requirements of
Title II of the Act do not apply.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this IRFA. Send your comments to an
address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2013–0393; Directorate Identifier 2012–
CE–025–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of the IRFA as related to the AD
action. The most helpful comments will
reference a specific portion of the IRFA
or related rulemaking document,
explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about the AD.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
October 22, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–25526 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
64419
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Examining the AD Docket
Federal Aviation Administration
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone: 781–238–7154; fax: 781–238–
7199; email: robert.c.morlath@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0740; Directorate
Identifier 2013–NE–24–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Pratt &
Whitney Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt
& Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037D,
PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D,
PW2043, PW2146, PW2240, PW2337,
PW2643, and F117–PW–100 turbofan
engines. This proposed AD was
prompted by a rupture of the diffuserto-high-pressure turbine (HPT) case
flange. This proposed AD would require
a one-time eddy current inspection (ECI)
of affected engines with certain diffuser
and HPT cases installed. This AD also
proposes to require a fluorescentpenetrant inspection (FPI) of the
diffuser case rear flange and HPT case
front flange. We are proposing this AD
to prevent failure of the diffuser-to-HPT
case flange, which could lead to
uncontained engine failure and damage
to the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by December 30,
2013.
SUMMARY:
You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Pratt &
Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford,
CT 06108; phone: 860–565–8770; fax:
860–565–4503. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2013–0740; Directorate Identifier 2013–
NE–24–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We received a report of an engine
event in October 2011 that resulted in
a rupture of the engine diffuser-to-HPT
case flange. The rupture caused the
engine cowl doors to break open, which
resulted in damage to the underside of
the airplane’s wing. Subsequent
investigation revealed that the root
cause of this rupture was a crack that
originated in HPT case M-flange
boltholes (the forward flange of the HPT
case that mates with the rear outer
flange of the diffuser case). This
condition, if not corrected, could result
in failure of the diffuser-to-HPT case
flange, which may cause an
uncontained engine failure and damage
to the airplane.
E:\FR\FM\29OCP1.SGM
29OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64417-64419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25526]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2013-0393; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-025-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Airplanes;
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Availability of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of and request for
comments on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the
previously published Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-09-05 that
applies to certain Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Models 690, 690A, and
690B airplanes. AD 2013-09-05 requires inspection for cracking of the
outer fuselage attachments, the lower wing main spar, the vertical
channels, the upper picture window channels, aft cabin pressure web,
external wing to fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or replacement
of damaged parts as necessary; and modification of the structure with
reinforced parts.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone:
(425) 917-6426; fax: (425) 917-6590; email: kathleen.arrigotti@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued AD 2013-09-05; Amendment 39-17446, which was published in
the Federal Register on May 14, 2013 (78 FR 28125) (``AD 2013-09-05''),
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to the specified
products. AD 2013-09-05 requires inspection for cracking of the outer
fuselage attachments, the lower wing main spar, the vertical channels,
the upper picture window channels, aft cabin pressure web, external
wing to fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or replacement of
damaged parts as necessary; and modification of the structure with
reinforced parts.
Reason for This Action
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In accordance with Section 608 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency head may waive or delay
completion of some or all of the requirements of Section 603 by
providing a written finding that the final rule is being promulgated in
response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance
with the provisions of Section 603 impracticable. The agency issued AD
2013-09-05 in response to an immediate safety of flight condition that
made compliance with the provisions of Section 603 impracticable. After
issuing AD 2013-09-05, the agency reviewed the AD actions and
determined that the final rule did have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The following presents the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis prepared by the agency as
described in the RFA.
1. Reason for Agency Action
We issued AD 2013-09-05 for certain Twin Commander Aircraft LLC
Models 690, 690A, and 690B airplanes. The AD requires inspection for
cracking of the outer fuselage attachments, the lower wing main spar,
the vertical channels, the upper picture window channels, aft cabin
pressure web, external wing to fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair
or replacement of damaged parts as necessary; and modification of the
structure with reinforced parts. The AD was prompted by cracks found in
the upper picture window frame channels, left- and right-hand wing main
spar frame support channels, and aft pressure bulkhead web. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in structural failure of the
airplane. We issued the AD to correct the unsafe condition on these
products.
2. Legal Basis and Objectives of the Final Rule
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
[[Page 64418]]
detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We issued the AD 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 the AD.
3. Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule
Compliance
Compliance with AD 2013-09-05 must occur within the times
specified, unless already done.
Inspection
Inspect the airplane structural components, at the compliance times
specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of the AD
following Part I of Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241,
September 26, 2012:
For airplanes with 10,000 or more hours time-in-service
(TIS), inspect within the next 30 days after May 29, 2013 (the
effective date of the AD).
For airplanes with 7,500 through 9,999 hours TIS, inspect
within the next 60 days after May 29, 2013 (the effective date of the
AD).
For airplanes with 5,000 through 7,499 hours TIS, inspect
within the next 6 months after May 29, 2013 (the effective date of the
AD).
For airplanes with less than 5,000 hours TIS, inspect when
the airplane accumulates a total of 5,000 hours TIS or within the next
12 months after May 29, 2013 (the effective date of the AD), whichever
occurs later.
Repair
If any damage, cracks, and/or cracks that exceed the allowable
limits specified in the service bulletin are found during the
inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) of the AD, before further
flight, repair or replace parts as necessary following Twin Commander
Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012. If Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012,
does not give procedures for repair of the damaged area, before further
flight, you must contact Twin Commander Aircraft LLC to obtain repair
instructions approved by the Seattle ACO specifically for compliance
with this AD and incorporate those instructions. You can find contact
information for Twin Commander Aircraft LLC in paragraph (l)(2) of the
AD.
Modification and Reassembly
Before further flight after completing the actions in
paragraphs (g) and (h) of the AD, modify and reassemble the airplane
using the modification and reassembly procedures in Part II of Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012.
Although Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241,
dated September 26, 2012, states that at least one person on the
modification team must have completed the Twin Commander Aircraft LLC
approved training, the FAA does not require that a mechanic complete
this specialized training to do the modification work required in the
AD. Regulations 14 CFR 65.81(a) and 14 CFR 65.81(b) provide criteria
about qualifications of those performing maintenance; in this case, the
requirements of the AD.
4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Final Rule
There are no rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with AD
2013-09-05.
5. Description and Estimation of the Number of Small Entities Affected
by the Final Rule
Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a final rule
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This
determination is typically based on small entity size and revenue
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry. To determine
the number of small entities affected by the airworthiness directive,
we searched the FAA Aircraft Registry database. The database provides
ownership information for 175 of the airplanes affected by AD 2013-09-
05, and average airplane values for these airplanes are available in
the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest.
The FAA aircraft registry categorizes owners of affected airplanes
as individuals, co-owners, corporations, and governments. A review of
the corporations shows that an overwhelming majority are privately
held. In most cases, the information about these corporations cannot be
determined because financial and employment data for privately held
entities is sparse. Nevertheless, the FAA believes the number of small
business entities affected by the AD is substantial.
The serial numbers for the 175 affected airplanes that we have
information on was used to look up average retail values in the
Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest. The ``Digest'' provides average retail
values by model, year, and serial number. It is only a guide since the
actual condition and upgrades to individual airplanes are not known.
The value range for the 175 affected airplanes is between $225,000 and
$555,000 per airplane. The range is primarily due to age (i.e., the
older an airplane the lower its retail value versus a newer model of
the same airplane). The total retail value of the affected airplanes is
equal to the sum of the retail value for each individual airplane. This
summation equals $78.9 million (or an average of about $451,000 per
airplane).
The economic impact on small entities due to the AD is significant.
This determination is based on the percentage of the cost of compliance
per airplane ($58,090) to the average retail value per airplane
($451,000), which is estimated to be 12.9 percent.
Based on the discussion above, complying with the AD is determined
to be significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
6. Alternatives Considered
The FAA considered possible alternative actions and determined the
actions taken were necessary to address the unsafe condition. The FAA
did not extend the compliance time because we needed to act immediately
to address the immediate safety problem. The inspection and
modification both involve a complex disassembly that comprises most of
the labor cost associated with the AD. Performing the modification
while the airplane is already disassembled for inspection saves owners
the labor cost of disassembling twice. If discrepancies are not found
in the inspection, no repair expense, beyond the mandated modification
expense, will occur.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a
[[Page 64419]]
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and
does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this
objective. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. The FAA assessed the potential effect of the AD and
determined that because it addresses an immediate safety issue the AD
is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of
the United States.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. The AD does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this IRFA. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0393;
Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-025-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the IRFA as related to
the AD action. The most helpful comments will reference a specific
portion of the IRFA or related rulemaking document, explain the reason
for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about the AD.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 22, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-25526 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P