A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2003 (68 FR 56596). That action proposed to require various inspections of the fuselage nose structure between stations 4 and 11, and corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received from a single commenter.
Request To Withdraw Proposed AD
The commenter, an operator, states that the proposed AD is an unnecessary burden to operators. The commenter suggests that instead of the FAA issuing an AD, the maintenance review board (MRB) report should be revised to include the actions required by the proposed AD. The commenter states thatit currently performs numerous inspections for cracking on its fleet of Jetstream Model 4101 airplanes using procedures specified in the commenter's maintenance programs. The commenter notes that BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-53-047, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2002, specifies that when the inspections and procedures in the service bulletin are published in the MRB report and the maintenance planning document (MPD), the inspections and procedures will be deleted from the service bulletin and the MRB report will become the published source document. The commenter also notes that another operator, with a fleet of 27 Jetstream Model 4101 airplanes, did the inspections specified in the service bulletin and did not find any cracking. Compliance with the proposed AD would require the commenter to bring 25 airplanes "off-line" to access and inspect the areas specified in the proposed AD. The commenter states that if the inspection procedures were added to the MRB reportthrough a revision, an operator could merge these inspections into its established maintenance program so the inspections coincide with the operator's heavy maintenance program, which would reduce the operational impact.
The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the AD be withdrawn. We do not agree. The procedures specified in operators' MRB reports are not mandatory. Therefore, we must issue an AD to ensure that the identified unsafe condition is properly addressed. We acknowledge that some operators may currently have maintenance programs that address the unsafe condition. If a program is adequate, an operator would be in a position to request approval for an alternative method of compliance with the AD (i.e., to follow the operator's current program rather than revise it to comply with the AD). Our obligation to issue the AD and address an unsafe condition remains; the rule must apply to everyone to ensure that all affected airplanes are covered, regardless of who operates them. Furthermore, the airworthiness authority for the state of design issued an airworthiness directive mandating the same actions required by this AD. This AD has not been changed regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Cost Impact Section
The commenter notes that the figure in the Cost Impact section of the proposed AD does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up an airplane. The commenter states that these costs are not incidental, and that the majority of time required to perform the various inspections is spent accessing the areas to be inspected.
We infer that the commenter is requesting that the Cost Impact section of the proposed AD be revised. We do not agree. As stated in the proposed AD, "the figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD." The specific actions required by the AD are various inspections of the fuselage nose structure between stations 4 and 11. We expect that most operators will be able to do the actions required by this AD during scheduled maintenance. We attempt to set compliance times that generally coincide with operators' maintenance schedules. However, because operators' schedules vary substantially, we cannot accommodate every operator's optimal scheduling in each AD. The time necessary for gaining access to and closing the inspection area is incidental. This AD has not been changed regarding this issue.
The commenter also objects to the FAA's assumption that "no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted." The commenter states that it performs numerous inspections for cracking in accordance with its maintenance program.
The commenter appears to have misunderstood the context of the quoted statement: "The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted." The purpose of the Cost Impact section of the NPRM is to estimate the costs of compliance with the proposed AD. As stated, for this purpose, the FAA assumes that all operators taking the required actions are doing so only because the AD requires it. We recognize that in most cases this assumption is incorrect, and that the resulting costs attributed to the AD are exaggerated. But we do not have access to data that would enable us to accurately determine on what percentage of affected airplanes the actions would be done in the absence of the AD. This AD has not been changed regarding this issue.
Explanation of Changes to This AD
We have included the headers "Inspections" and "Corrective Actions" in the body of this AD. These headers were inadvertently omitted from the proposed AD. We also changed the citations for the appropriate source of service information from Jetstream Service Bulletin J41-53-047, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2002, to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-53-047, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2002, to comply with the Office of the Federal Register's guidelines for material incorporated by reference. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 57 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 50 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $185,250, or $3,250 perairplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
Regulatory Impact
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.
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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from 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
Accordingly, pursuant to 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
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive: