AD 2003-17-05

[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50689-50693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 03-20983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-CE-17-AD; Amendment 39-13279; AD 2003-17-05]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. Models 
SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that 
applies to all Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. (Shorts) Models SC-7 
Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. This AD establishes a technical 
service life for these airplanes and allows you to incorporate 
modifications, inspections, and replacements of certain life limited 
items to extend the life limits of these airplanes. This AD is the 
result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 
by the airworthiness authority for

[[Page 50690]]

the United Kingdom. The actions specified by this AD are intended to 
prevent failure of critical structure of the aircraft caused by 
fatigue.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on September 29, 2003.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of 
September 29, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information referenced in this AD 
from Short Brothers PLC, PO Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast BT3 9DZ 
Northern Ireland; telephone: +44 (0) 28 9045 8444; facsimile: +44 (0) 
28 9073 3396. You may view this information at the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-CE-17-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas 
City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion

    What events have caused this AD? The Civil Aviation Authority 
(CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, 
recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Shorts 
Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. The CAA reports that 
the Model SC-7 airframe has undergone structural evaluations that have 
resulted in the establishment of an airplane service life limit.
    Modifications, inspections, and replacements of certain life 
limited items have been identified to further extend the life of the 
aircraft.
    What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? The life 
limits, if not complied with, could result in failure of the primary 
structural components and possibly result in structural failure during 
flight.
    Has FAA taken any action to this point? 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 Shorts Models SC-7 Series 2 and 
SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal 
Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 13, 2002 
(67 FR 68779). The NPRM proposed to establish a technical service life 
for these airplanes and allow you to incorporate modifications, 
inspections, and replacements of certain life limited items to extend 
the life limits of these airplanes.
    Was the public invited to comment? The FAA encouraged interested 
persons to participate in the making of this amendment. The following 
presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to 
each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: AD Is Not Needed

    What is the commenter's concern? One commenter states that the 
proposed issuance of this AD serves no safety benefit since all of the 
U.S. registered airplanes affected are already in compliance with the 
referenced service information, and no accidents have been reported as 
a result of any structural failures. The commenter recommends that FAA 
not issue this AD. We infer that the commenter recommends that FAA 
withdraw the NPRM.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur that the AD 
serves no safety benefit and that we should withdraw the NPRM. The FAA 
does not have confirmation that all of the U.S. registered airplanes 
are in compliance with the referenced service information. In addition, 
imported aircraft need to have the AD stated for a records checks 
during issuance of an airworthiness certificate. The actions referenced 
in the service information are not required when the service life 
limits are reached, unless required by AD.
    Therefore, the AD is necessary to ensure the life limits are 
required. We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of 
this comment.

Comment Issue No. 2: Economic Hardship

    What is the commenter's concern? Ten commenters state that issuing 
the AD would result in economic hardship to them. Specifically, these 
commenters communicated the following:

--Seven commenters state that issuing the AD would result in a 
prohibitive cost increase for their use of the aircraft or result in 
the loss of the aircraft. We infer that ``by loss of the use of the 
aircraft'' that the owner/operator of the affected airplane would 
choose to retire the airplane from service.
--Three commenters state that issuing the AD would reduce the remaining 
time-in-service of the affected airplanes and result in airplanes with 
no resale value. We infer that owners/operators would choose to 
withdraw airplanes from service rather than work with the manufacturer 
to develop a life extension program for the affected airplanes.

    We infer that the 10 commenters want FAA to withdraw the NPRM.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA does not concur that 
the NPRM should be withdrawn because of economic impact. We have no way 
of determining the number or extent of inspections, repairs, and 
replacements that would be necessary based on the owner/operator and 
manufacturer developed life extension program for the affected 
airplanes noted in the NPRM. Further, it is the owners'/operators' 
responsibility to propose an alternative method of compliance that 
provides an acceptable level of safety.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of theses 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 3: Insufficient Comment Time

    What is the commenter's concern? Five commenters state that the 
comment period length was insufficient, that additional time is 
necessary to obtain technical information from the manufacturer, that 
there is no urgent safety condition indicating the need for this AD, 
and that more time is needed to propose a more comprehensive inspection 
program.
    We infer that the five commenters want FAA to extend the comment 
period of the NPRM and delay issuance of the AD.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? We disagree that the comment 
period for the NPRM should be extended. The comment period ended on 
December 23, 2002. However, FAA has always accepted late comments. 
Based on the timing of the final rule, the public had more than six 
extra months to comment on the NPRM. The FAA agrees that no urgent 
safety of flight condition existed; if an urgent safety of flight 
condition exists for this type design, we would have determined that 
this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued 
immediately and that must become effective prior to public comment. 
Owners/operators who want to propose a more comprehensive inspection 
program are free to work with the manufacturer to develop a life 
extension program for the affected airplane(s) and submit a plan to the 
FAA as an alternative method of compliance.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 4: Inadequate/Incorrect Supporting Data

    What is the commenter's concern? Six commenters state that 
inadequate/incorrect supporting data had been cited

[[Page 50691]]

or used in the development of the NPRM, as follows:

--Several commenters state that FAA should require the manufacturer or 
others to submit data for review.
--Two commenters state that the aircraft's characteristics make it the 
most safe for their use. The FAA infers that the commenters prefer this 
type design to other type designs.
--Three commenters state that several airplanes have not been subject 
to operations that would reduce life limits. We infer that the 
commenters believe these airplanes are eligible for life extension 
programs.

    What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA disagrees that 
inadequate or incorrect supporting data has been considered in the 
development of the NPRM. Under the bilateral airworthiness agreement 
between the United Kingdom and the United States, the airworthiness 
authority (after coordination with the manufacturer), notified FAA that 
an unsafe condition exists or could develop on all Shorts Models SC-7 
Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. The airworthiness authority 
reported that the Model SC-7 airframe has undergone structural 
evaluations that have resulted in the establishment of an airplane 
service life limit. Modifications, inspections, and replacements of 
certain life limited items were identified to further extend the life 
of the aircraft.
    We have reviewed the available data and found the data adequate and 
correct. Therefore, we are not changing the final rule AD action as a 
result of these comments.

Comment Issue No. 5: Service Difficulty History Does Not Justify AD 
Action

    What is the commenter's concern? Several commenters state that the 
service difficulty history shows no structural problems of the type 
stated in the NPRM. We infer that the commenters feel the lack of a 
service difficulty history for the type design warrants the withdrawal 
of the NPRM.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA disagrees that the 
lack of a service difficulty history is sufficient to justify the 
withdrawal of the NPRM. The manufacturer and the airworthiness 
authority have stated that the life limit should be reduced based on 
their analyses and technical expertise.
    The FAA has examined these findings, reviewed all available 
information, and determined that AD action should be taken. Therefore, 
we are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 6: Operational Profile (Gross Weight Penalty)

    What is the commenter's concern? Two commenters state that certain 
airplanes have an operational history profile (operating at lesser 
gross weight than considered by the manufacturer and foreign 
airworthiness authority) that does not warrant reduction in life limits 
as would be required in the AD. The FAA infers that commenters want the 
withdrawal of the proposed NPRM or adjustment of the life limits for 
certain aircraft of the affected type design.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA disagrees that 
certain airplanes' operational history profiles warrant withdrawal of 
the NPRM or changes in the life limits. The manufacturer and the 
foreign airworthiness authority have determined that AD action is 
needed, and FAA confirms this need for AD action.
    The owners/operators of affected airplanes are free to work with 
the manufacturer to develop a life extension program for the affected 
airplanes and submit a plan to the FAA.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 7: Safe Life Principle

    What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states the argument 
that the manufacturer should not be using a 35-year old safe life 
process to determine life limits for aircraft of this type design. 
Further, newer non-destructive inspection (NDI) techniques are 
available. The FAA infers that the commenter wants the NPRM withdrawn 
or increased life limits for certain aircraft.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? We disagree that the NPRM 
should be withdrawn or that there should be increased life limits for 
certain aircraft. Although newer NDI techniques do exist, no NDI 
procedures have been proposed for this issue that we have determined 
will detect the fatigue before it occurs. We will consider NDI 
procedures proposed as part of an alternative method of compliance.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this 
comment.

Comment Issue No. 8: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Not 
Fulfilled

    What is the commenter's concern? One commenter states that FAA has 
not provided FOIA requested information. We infer that the commenter 
wants the NPRM withdrawn or a supplemental NPRM issued with the public 
allowed to review the requested information and to provide public 
comments with a new comment period.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA disagrees that the 
NPRM should be withdrawn or a supplemental NPRM issued. The FAA handles 
FOIA requests independently of ADs. We have determined that an unsafe 
condition exists and that AD action is necessary to correct it.
    Therefore, we are not changing the final rule AD action as a result 
of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 9: Service Bulletins Already Incorporated

    What is the commenter's concern? Commenters state that all affected 
airplanes have incorporated the requirements of the referenced service 
information. Also, one service bulletin was issued in 1978. FAA infers 
that the commenters believe the NPRM should be withdrawn because they 
believe all airplanes in the United States have complied with the 
service information and the service bulletin issued in 1978 without a 
related AD action until now.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA disagrees that the 
NPRM should be withdrawn. Assurance that all airplanes are in 
compliance with service information is not justification to not issue 
an AD. The original type certificate did not include service life 
limits. The only way to mandate these limits on all airplanes, 
including those getting future airworthiness certificates, is through 
AD action.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 10: AD Action Should Not Apply to Aircraft Used in 
Part 91 Operations

    What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states that, because 
the aircraft looks good and has been operated under favorable 
conditions, (1) there should be an in-depth study of the AD; (2) 
initial life limits for the aircraft should be 30,000 cycles; and (3) a 
recommended plan of inspection should be implemented. The FAA infers 
that the commenter wants the NPRM withdrawn or a supplemental NPRM 
issued with a life limit of 30,000 cycles and a recommended plan of 
inspection proposed.
    What is FAA's response to the concern? We disagree that the NPRM 
should be withdrawn or a supplemental NPRM issued. We have determined 
that the AD as proposed addresses the unsafe condition. The referenced 
life extension program could be proposed as an alternative method of 
compliance

[[Page 50692]]

provided details are included that show an acceptable level of safety. 
A detailed method and thresholds for cracks and inspection intervals 
would have to be proposed.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

FAA's Determination

    What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful 
review of all available information related to the subject presented 
above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest 
require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial 
corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

--Provide 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.

Cost Impact

    How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD 
affects 22 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
    What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the 
affected airplanes? The impact of this AD will be not being able to 
operate the airplane past the established service life limit. The 
following paragraphs present cost if you choose to extend the life 
limit.
    We estimate the following costs to accomplish the aircraft life 
extension prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51 on 19 
aircraft:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total cost per     Total cost on
                       Labor cost                            Parts cost          airplane        U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
350 workhours x $60 per hour = $21,000.................            $90,000           $111,000         $2,109,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following to accomplish the aircraft life extension 
prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52 for the 6 aircraft 
serial numbers 1845, 1847, 1883, 1889, 1943, and 1960:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total cost per     Total cost on
                       Labor cost                            Parts cost          airplane        U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 workhours x $60 per hour = $7,200..................            $22,000            $29,200           $175,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of these 6 airplanes will also incorporate Shorts Service 
Bulletin No. 51-51 and are part of the 19 airplanes subset of the total 
set of 22 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

Compliance Time of This AD

    What would be the compliance time of this AD? The compliance time 
of this AD is upon accumulating the applicable life limit or within the 
next 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
later.
    Why is the compliance time of this AD presented in flights, hours 
TIS and calendar time? The unsafe condition on these airplanes is a 
result of the combination of the number of times the airplane is 
operated and how the airplane is operated (for example, weight 
carried). Airplane operation varies among operators. For example, one 
operator may operate the airplane 100 flights or 50 hours TIS in 3 
months and carrying low weights while it may take another operator 12 
months or more to accumulate 100 flights or 50 hours TIS while carrying 
heavy weights. For this reason, we have determined that the compliance 
time of this AD will be specified in flights, hours time-in-service 
(TIS), and calendar time in order to assure this condition is not 
allowed to go uncorrected over time.

Regulatory Impact

    Does this AD impact various entities? The regulations adopted 
herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not 
have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For 
the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is 
not a ``significant rule'' under 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. A copy 
of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the 
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules 
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, 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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:

2003-17-05 Short Brothers and Harland Ltd.: Amendment 39-13279; 
Docket No. 2000-CE-17-AD.

    (a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? This AD affects 
Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes, all serial 
numbers, that are certificated in any category.
    (b) Who must comply with this AD? Anyone who wishes to operate 
any of the airplanes identified in paragraph (a) of this AD must 
comply with this AD.
    (c) What problem does this AD address? The actions specified by 
this AD are intended to prevent failure of critical structure of the 
aircraft caused by fatigue.
    (d) What must I do to comply with this AD? Do not operate the 
airplane upon accumulating the applicable life limit or within the 
next 90 days after September 29, 2003 (the effective date of this 
AD), whichever occurs later. The following table presents the life 
limits:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Serial number                         Life limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) SH1845 and SH1883.....................  10,000 hours time-in-service
                                             (TIS).
(2) SH1847................................  15,200 hours TIS.

[[Page 50693]]

 
(3) SH1889................................  13,805 flights.
(4) SH1943................................  11,306 flights.
(5) SH1960................................  4,142 flights.
(6) All airplanes that do not have serial   20,000 flights.
 number SH1845, SH1883, SH1847, SH1889,
 SH1943, or SH1960.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note 1: For owners/operators that do not have a record of the 
number of flights on the aircraft, assume the number of flights on 
the basis of two per operating hour.

    (e) What must I do to extend the life limits for airplanes with 
serial number SH1845, SH1847, SH1883, SH1889, SH1943, or SH1960? To 
extend the life limit on one of these airplanes, you must accomplish 
the actions of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Original Issue: 
September 1, 1981 (latest version at Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 
2002), and Shorts Skyvan Maintenance Program 1, not dated. The 
following table presents the extended life limit:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Serial number                     Extended life limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) SH1845:                          13,456 hours TIS.
(2) SH1847:                          20,200 hours TIS.
(3) SH1883:                          15,000 hours TIS.
(4) SH1889:                          20,094 flights.
(5) SH1943:                          17,325 flights.
(6) SH1960:                          8,449 flights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) What must I do to extend the life limit for my airplanes that 
do not have serial number SH1845, SH1883, SH1847, SH1889, SH1943, or 
SH1960? You can extend the life limit to 27,000 flights by 
accomplishing the actions of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, 
Original Issue: June 6, 1978 (latest version at Revision No.: 6, dated: 
March 14, 1983), and Shorts Skyvan Maintenance Program 1, not dated.

    Note 2: These life limits described in paragraph (e) are the 
final life limits of each aircraft unless the owner/operator works 
with Shorts Brothers PLC to develop a life extension program. Submit 
a plan to the FAA (address specified in paragraph (g) of this AD) 
for the proposed life extension program. Accomplishment of Shorts 
Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Original Issue: June 6, 1978 (latest 
version at Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983), does not extend 
the service life beyond the life limits described in paragraph (e).

    (g) Can I comply with this AD in any other way? You may use an 
alternative method of compliance or adjust the compliance time if:
    (1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent 
level of safety; and
    (2) The Standards Office Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 
approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA Principal 
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the 
Standards Office Manager.

    Note 3: This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph 
(a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, 
or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For 
airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the 
performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/
operator must request approval for an alternative method of 
compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. The request 
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, 
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; 
and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific 
actions you propose to address it.

    (h) Where can I get information about any already-approved 
alternative methods of compliance? Contact Doug Rudolph, Aerospace 
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas 
City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-
4090.
    (i) What if I need to fly the airplane to another location to 
comply with this AD? The FAA can issue a special flight permit under 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
21.197 and 21.199) to operate your airplane to a location where you can 
accomplish the requirements of this AD.
    (j) Are any service bulletins incorporated into this AD by 
reference? Actions required by this AD must be done in accordance with 
Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 
1983; and Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: 
July 16, 2002). The Director of the Federal Register approved this 
incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 
may get copies from Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, 
Belfast BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland; telephone: +44 (0) 28 9045 8444; 
facsimile: +44 (0) 28 9073 3396. You may view copies at the FAA, 
Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, 
Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

    Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed in British AD Number 
019-09-81, not dated.

    (i) When does this amendment become effective? This amendment 
becomes effective on September 29, 2003.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 12, 2003.
Diane K. Malone,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-20983 Filed 8-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P