Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; all Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and all Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75757) (``the NPRM'').
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0096, dated May 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; all Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and all Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20- E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The MCAI states:
A detailed inspection (DET) of the fuselage bulkhead at frame (FR) 33 is established through a subset of inspection/check maintenance procedure referenced in the applicable aircraft maintenance manual (AMM), task 53-10-0-6 ``MAIN FRAME--INSPECTION/ CHECK'', with periodicity established in Chapter 5-10, at every C- Check. Failure to accomplish this DET could lead to deterioration of the affected structure.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to bulkhead failure, possibly resulting in a rapid depressurization of the aeroplane and consequent injury to occupants.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive DET of the bulkhead at FR33 [for discrepancies, such as buckling, deformations, cracks, loose countersinks, scratches, dents, and corrosion], and depending on findings, repair of the affected structure.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016- 9303.
CommentsWe gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the single commenter.
Request To Reduce Compliance Time
The commenter, Mark Reiner, asked that the compliance time for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be reduced from 5,000 to 2,500 flight cycles. The commenter reasoned that since so many airplanes are flying around the world and accumulating numerous flight cycles, the chances of problems occurring on an airplane are greatly increased.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation for an appropriate compliance time, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the inspections within an interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. Further, we determined that the compliance time recommended by the manufacturer and EASA, and the time required for the rulemaking process provide an acceptable level of safety. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
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.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 133 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 perwork-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $90,440, or $680 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
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 rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We 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);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
[[Page 21471]]
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List ofSubjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.