AD 2001-01-11

This AD becomes effective on March 9, 2001.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of March 9, 2001.

You may get the service information referenced in this AD from Rolladen-Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH, Muhlstrasse 10, D-63329 Egelsbach, Germany; phone: ++ 49 6103 204126; facsimile: ++ 49 6103 45526. You may examine this information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-CE-75-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.

Brian Hancock, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4143; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

What events have caused this AD? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Rolladen Schneider Models LS 4 and LS 4a sailplanes. The LBA reports two occurrences of damaged airbrake locking brackets found on the above-referenced sailplanes. The damage was the result of improper rigging of the airbrake system. The asymmetric load that occurs over time with an improperly rigged airbrake system could result in cracks in the welding region of the airbrake tube and lateral deformation of the airbrake locking bracket.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? Damage to the airbrake locking bracket, if not detected and corrected, could result in the pilot's inability to operate the airbrake controls with consequent loss of sailplane control.

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 certain Rolladen Schneider Models LS 4 and LS 4a sailplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67315). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the airbrake locking bracket on the rear landing gear box for signs of fatigue (cracks in the paint, paint chips, or cracks in the welding region to the tube) and inspect for proper rigging of the airbrake system; reassemble the airbrake system (if improper rigging is found). If any sign of fatigue is evident, disassemble the airbrake system, obtain a modified airbrake locking bracket from the manufacturer, install this bracket, and accomplish certain adjustments after reassembling the airbrake system; and report any damage found to the FAA.

The FAA is requiring a reporting requirement so we can get an idea of how many sailplanes in the fleet have damaged or incorrectly rigged airbrake systems. We will utilize this information in deciding whether any of the required actions should be repetitive or whether we should initiate additional rulemaking.

Was the public invited to comment? Interested persons were afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

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 determined that these minor corrections:

—Will not change the meaning of the AD; and

—Will not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.

How many sailplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 78 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection and any necessary reassembly:

We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary modification that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of sailplanes that may need such modification:

What is the compliance time of this AD? The compliance time of this AD is within the next 30 calendar days after the effective date of this AD.

Why is the compliance time presented in calendar time instead of hours time-in-service (TIS)? Damage to the airbrake locking brake occurs as a result of sailplane operation. However, the reason the damage occurs is because of incorrect rigging of the airbrake system. We have determined that a calendar time for compliance is necessary because this incorrect rigging is not directly related to sailplane operation. The chance of this situation occurring is the same for a sailplane with 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) as it is for a sailplane with 500 hours TIS. For this reason, the FAA has determined that a compliance based on calendar time will be utilized in this AD in order to assure that the unsafe condition is addressed on all sailplanes in a reasonable time period.

Why is the compliance time of this AD different than the German AD and the service information? The service information specifies the actions required in this AD “prior to further flight” and the German AD mandates these actions “prior to further flight” for sailplanes registered for operation in Germany. The FAA does not have justification for requiring the action prior to further flight. Instead, the FAA has determined that 30 calendar days is a reasonable time period for accomplishing the actions in this AD.

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.

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: