Discussion \n\n\tHas FAA taken any action to this point? Reports from the Luftfahrt- Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, that the safety margins established into the design of the fuselage may not be sufficient to sustain limit loads during certain maneuvers and during flight at certain speeds for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103 TWIN II, G103A TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes. This caused us to issue AD 2003-19-14, Amendment 39-13317 (68 FR 56152, September 30, 2003). AD 2003-19-14 required the following: \n\n--Modifying the airspeed indicators; \n--Installing placards restricting flight speeds, prohibiting aerobatic maneuvers, and restricting load limits; and --Incorporating revisions to the flight and maintenance manuals. \n\n\tAD 2003-19-14 was issued as an interim action until the manufacturer completed further investigations into the effects of certain flight conditions on the fuselage structure and the development of corrective procedures. \n\n\tThe manufacturer conducted further investigations and static strength tests to verify the safety margins of the fuselage on the affected sailplanes. This information prompted us to issue AD 2003-19- 14 R1, Amendment 39-13676 (69 FR 34258, June 21, 2004). AD 2003-19-14 R1 requires the following: \n\n\tFor Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes: \n\n--Retain all flight limitation restrictions in AD 2003-19-14. \n\n\tFor Model G103 TWIN II sailplanes: \n\n--Reinstate the original flight speed limitations and maneuver operations and remove from the applicability section of AD 2003-19-14; \n\n\tFor Model G103A TWIN II ACRO (utility category) sailplanes: \n\n--Reinstate the original flight speed limitations and maneuver operations; and \n--Allow only basic aerobatic maneuvers (spins, lazy eights, chandelles, stall turns, steep turns, and positive loops). \n\n\tFor Model G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) sailplanes: \n\n--Reinstate the original flight speed limitations except for rough air (VB) and maneuvering speeds (VA); and \n--Allow only basic aerobatic maneuvers (spins, lazy eights, chandelles, stall turns, steep turns, and positive loops). \n\n\tFor Model G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes: \n\n--Increase airspeed limits specified in AD 2003-19-14 but maintain a reduction from the original limitations; and \n--Retain restrictions in AD 2003-19-14 on all aerobatic flights, including simple maneuvers, and cloud flying. \n\n\tThe manufacturer also developed a modification for Models G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes (aerobatic category). When this modification is incorporated, full acrobatic status is restored to these sailplanes. \n\n\tWhat has happened since AD 2003-19-14 R1 to initiate this proposed action? The LBA recently notified FAA of the need to change AD 2003-19- 14 R1. Based on analysis, the LBA reports that certain limits of operation for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes may be reinstated.Specifically, the maximum airspeed in calm air (VNE) could be reinstated to 135 knots (155 mph/250kmh) for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. Aerobatic flight is still prohibited; however, simple aerobatic flight (looping, steep turns, lazy eights, and chandelles) may be performed following the flight manual. \n\n\tWhat is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not prevented, damage to the fuselage during limit load flight could result in reduced structural integrity. This condition could lead to loss of control of the sailplane. \n\n\tHas 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 certain GROB Models G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103A TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14580). The NPRM proposed to revise AD 2003-19-14 R1 with a new AD that would: \n\n\t(1) retain all actions required in AD 2003-19-14 R1 for Models G103A TWIN II ACRO and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes; and \n\t(2) reinstate certain operating limits for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. \n\nComments \n\n\tWas the public invited to comment? We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public. \n\nConclusion \n\n\tWhat is FAA's final determination on this issue? 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: \n\n--Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and \n--Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. \n\nChanges to 14 CFR Part 39--Effect on the AD \n\n\tHow does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\tHow many sailplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 94 sailplanes in the U.S. registry. \n\n\tWhat is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to do the modifications to the airspeed indicators, flight limitations placards, and revising the flight and maintenance manuals: \n\n\nLabor cost \nParts cost \nTotal cost per sail-plane \nTotal cost on U.S. operators \n1 work hour × $65 = $65 \nNot applicable \n$65\n$65 ×94 = $6,110. \n\n\n\tFor G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) sailplanes and G103C TWIN III ACRO (aerobatic category) sailplanes, we estimate the following costs to do the fuselage modification: \n\n\nLabor cost \nParts cost \nTotal cost per sailplane \n30 work hours × $65 = $1,950 . \n$5,307 \n$7,257. \n\n\n\tWhat is the difference between the cost impact of this AD and the cost impact of AD 2003-19-14 R1? There is no cost difference between this AD and AD 2003-19-14 R1. This AD is only revising certain operating limits for certain Model G103 TWIN ASTIR. This AD does not require any additional actions than are currently required in AD 2003- 19-14 R1. \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\tWhat authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? 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 thescope of the agency's authority. \n\n\tWe 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\tWill this AD impact various entities? 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. \n\n\tWill this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\n\t1. Is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866; \n\n\t2. Is not a "significant rule" under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and \n\n\t3. 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. \n\n\tWe 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-2005-20441; Directorate Identifier 2003-CE-35-AD" in your request. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. \n\nAdoption of the Amendment \n\n Accordingly, under theauthority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: \n\nPART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: \n\n\tAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. \n\nSec. 39.13 (Amended) \n\n2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-19-14 R1, Amendment 39-13676 (69 FR 34258, June 21, 2004), and by adding a new AD to read as follows: