02-30346. Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP and 800 (Including Variant U-125A) Airplanes

AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP and 800 (including variant U-125A) airplanes. This proposal would require a one-time inspection to identify the bolts installed at certain locations in the wing or fuselage, and corrective actions if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent failure of certain attachment bolts due to manufacturing discrepancies, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and loss of system function for flaps, controls, and landing gear. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES:

Comments must be received by January 16, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-18-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to [phone]. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: [e-mail]. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-18-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Raytheon Aircraft Company, Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Ostrodka, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone [phone]; fax [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-18-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-18-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received a report of broken bolts found in the wing and fuselage of certain Hawker Model 800XP and 800 (including variant U-125A) airplanes. Investigation revealed inadequate control of the heat treat process during manufacture of the subject bolts. This resulted in an increased sensitivity to hydrogen embrittlement when electro-deposited cadmium plating was applied to the bolts. A bolt that incurs damage (hydrogen embrittlement) during manufacture will break in a short time after installation because of the bolt's installation preload. Intact (nonbroken) bolts currently installed on affected airplanes are considered adequate to carry the design loads. However, broken bolts could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and the loss of the systems for flaps, controls, and landing gear.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Service Bulletins SB 51-3408, dated October 2000, and SB 51-3426, Revision 1, dated November 2001 (for Model Hawker 800XP airplanes); and SB 51-3421, Revision 1, dated November 2001 (for Model Hawker 800 (including variant U-125A) airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for a one-time inspection to identify any Ravenstone Jackson DHS bolts installed at certain locations in the wing and fuselage, a one-time ultrasonic inspection of those bolts to detect breakage, and replacement of any broken bolt with an acceptable new bolt identified in the service bulletins. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable service bulletins described previously. The proposed AD would also require that operators report inspection findings of broken bolts to the FAA.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 104 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 76 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 44 or 600 work hours per airplane (depending on configuration) to accomplish the proposed inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,640 or $36,000 per airplane.

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 proposed AD were not adopted. However, the FAA has been advised that the actions specified in this proposed AD have already been accomplished on a number of airplanes that are subject to this AD. Therefore, the future economic cost impact of this rule on U.S. operators is expected to be reduced. 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. The manufacturer may cover the cost of replacement parts associated with this proposed AD, subject to warranty conditions. Manufacturer warranty remedies may also be available for labor costs associated with this proposed AD. As a result, the costs attributable to the proposed AD may be less than stated above.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein would 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 proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (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); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
• Safety

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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:

Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket 2001-NM-18-AD.

Applicability: Model Hawker 800XP and 800 (including variant U-125A) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 258287 through 258390, excluding the following serial numbers:

258289

258291

258292

258293

258294

258295

258301

258303

258310

258312

258313

258315

258321

258336

258343

Note 1:

This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, 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 (e) 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 the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of certain attachment bolts due to manufacturing discrepancies, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and loss of system function for flaps, controls, and landing gear, accomplish the following:

Inspection for Ravenstone Jackson Bolts

(a) Perform a general visual inspection to identify the type of bolts installed at specified locations of the wing and fuselage, in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5), as applicable, of this AD.

Note 2:

For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”

(1) For Model Hawker 800XP airplanes identified in the effectivity of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3408, dated October 2000: Inspect within 12 months after the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin.

(2) For Model Hawker 800XP airplanes identified in the effectivity of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3426, Revision 1, dated November 2001: Inspect within 18 months after the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin. Inspection before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3426, dated December 2000, is acceptable for compliance with the inspection requirements only for those locations identified in the original service bulletin; this AD requires inspections at additional locations in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.

(3) For Model Hawker 800 (including variant U-125A) airplanes identified as Group A airplanes in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3421, Revision 1, dated November 2001: Inspect within 12 months after the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin. Inspection before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3421, dated December 2000, is acceptable for compliance with this inspection requirement for Group A airplanes.

(4) For Model Hawker 800 (including variant U-125A) airplanes identified as Group B airplanes in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3421, Revision 1, dated November 2001: Inspect within 18 months after the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin. Inspection before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3421, dated December 2000, is acceptable for compliance with the inspection requirement only for those locations identified in the original service bulletin; this AD requires inspections at additional locations in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.

(5) For Model Hawker 800 (including variant U-125A) airplanes identified as Group C airplanes in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3421, Revision 1, dated November 2001: Inspect within 12 months after the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin. Inspection before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3421, dated December 2000, is acceptable for compliance with the inspection requirement only for those locations identified in the original service bulletin; this AD requires inspections at additional locations in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.

Inspection for Broken Bolts

(b) For any discrepant bolt (any Ravenstone Jackson DHS bolt or any bolt that cannot be identified) found during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD: Before further flight following detection of the discrepant bolt, perform an ultrasonic inspection to determine if the bolt is broken, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraph (a) of this AD. Replace any broken bolt with a new bolt before further flight, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.

Reporting Requirement

(c) If any broken bolt is found during the inspection specified in paragraph (b) of this AD: Send an inspection report at the applicable time specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD to the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; fax [phone]. The report must include the inspection results, a description of all discrepancies found, and the airplane serial number. Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

(1) For airplanes on which the inspection is accomplished after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD.

(2) For airplanes on which the inspection has been accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

Part Installation

(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a Ravenstone Jackson DHS bolt having a batch number identified in paragraph 3.B. of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3426, Revision 1, dated November 2001; paragraph 3.A. Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3421, Revision 1, dated November 2001; or paragraph 2.B. of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 51-3408, dated October 2000.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note 3:

Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Wichita ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 22, 2002.

Ali Bahrami,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.