[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64417-64419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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: [email protected].
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 http://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