Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58043

official, or senior management 

employee, or immediate family 

members of any such individual, is an 

officer or director, or has a stock interest 

of 10 percent or more. 

(iii) A partnership, limited liability 

company, or other entity in which any 

director, member of the credit 

committee or supervisory committee, or 

senior management employee, or 

immediate family members of any such 

individual, is a general partner, or a 

limited partner or entity member with 

an interest of 10 percent or more.

(2) The prohibition contained in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section also 

applies to a lease from any other 

employee if the employee is directly 

involved in investments in fixed assets 

unless the board of directors determines 

that the employee’s involvement does 

not present a conflict of interest. 

(3) All transactions with business 

associates or family members not 

specifically prohibited by this paragraph 

(c) must be conducted at arm’s length 

and in the interest of the credit union. 

(d) Regulatory Flexibility Program.

Federal credit unions that qualify for the 

Regulatory Flexibility Program provided 

for in part 742 of this chapter are 

exempt from the five percent limitation 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. For Federal credit unions 

eligible for the Regulatory Flexibility 

Program that subsequently lose 

eligibility: 

(1) Section 742.8 of this chapter 

provides that NCUA may require the 

credit union to divest any existing fixed 

assets for substantive safety and 

soundness reasons; and 

(2) The credit union may not make 

any new investments in fixed assets if, 

after the investment, the credit union’s 

total investments in fixed assets would 

exceed the five percent limitation 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. The regional director may 

waive this prohibition to allow for new 

investments. 

(e) Definitions—As used in this 

section: 

(1) Abandoned premises means real 

property previously used to transact 

credit union business but no longer 

used for that purpose and real property 

originally acquired for future expansion 

for which the credit union no longer 

contemplates such use. 

(2) Fixed assets means premises, 

furniture, fixtures and equipment. 

(3) Furniture, fixtures, and equipment

means all office furnishings, office 

machines, computer hardware and 

software, automated terminals, and 

heating and cooling equipment. 

(4) Investments in fixed assets means: 

(i) Any investment in improved or 

unimproved real property which is 

being used or is intended to be used as 

premises; 

(ii) Any leasehold improvement on 

premises; 

(iii) The aggregate of all capital and 

operating lease payments on fixed 

assets, without discounting 

commitments for future payments to 

present value; and 

(iv) Any investment in furniture, 

fixtures and equipment. 

(5) Immediate family member means 

a spouse or other family members living 

in the same household. 

(6) Premises means any office, branch 

office, suboffice, service center, parking 

lot, other facility, or real estate where 

the credit union transacts or will 

transact business. 

(7) Senior management employee

means the credit union’s chief executive 

officer (typically this individual holds 

the title of President or Treasurer/

Manager), any assistant chief executive 

officers (e.g., Assistant President, Vice 

President or Assistant Treasurer/

Manager) and the chief financial officer 

(Comptroller). 

(8) Shares means regular shares, share 

drafts, share certificates, other savings. 

(9) Retained earnings means 

undivided earnings, regular reserve, 

reserve for contingencies, supplemental 

reserves, reserve for losses, and other 

appropriations from undivided earnings 

as designated by management or the 

Administration.

PART 742—REGULATORY 

FLEXIBILITY PROGAM

■ 3. The authority citation for part 742 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C 1756 and 1766.

■ 4. Revise § 742.4(a) to read as follows:

§ 742.4 From what NCUA regulations will I 

be exempt? 

(a) RegFlex credit unions are exempt 

from the provisions of the following 

NCUA regulations without restrictions 

or limitations: § 701.25, § 701.32(b) and 

(c), § 701.36(a), § 703.5(b)(1)(ii) and (2), 

§ 703.12(c), § 703.16(b), and § 723.7(b) of 

this chapter.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–21757 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–126–AD; Amendment 

39–13808; AD 2004–20–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier 

Model DHC–8–101, –102, –103, –106, 

–201, –202, –301, –311, and –315 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to all Bombardier Model 

DHC–8–101, –102, –103, –106, –201, 

–202, –301, –311, and –315 airplanes. 

This amendment requires a detailed 

inspection of the wing leading edge deicer boots to determine if they comply 

with certain patch limits in the critical 

zone; and corrective action, if necessary. 

This action is necessary to prevent 

reduced aerodynamic smoothness of the 

wing leading edge de-icer boots and 

possible reduced stall margin, which 

could result in a significant increase in 

stall speeds, leading to a possible stall 

prior to activation of the stall warning. 

This action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective November 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier 

Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt 

Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 

1Y5, Canada. This information may be 

examined at the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; or at the FAA, New York 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, 

New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ezra 

Sasson, Aerospace Engineer, Systems 

and Flight Test Branch, ANE–172, FAA, 

New York Aircraft Certification Office, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, 

Westbury, New York, 11590; telephone 

(516) 228–7320; fax (516) 794–5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 Bombardier 

Model DHC–8–101, –102, –103, –106, 

–201, –202, –301, –311, and –315 

airplanes was published in the Federal 

Register on December 18, 2003 (68 FR 

58044 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

70469). That action proposed to require 

a detailed inspection of the wing 

leading edge de-icer boots to determine 

if they comply with the patch size and/

or patch number limits in the critical 

zone as defined in the aircraft 

maintenance manual; and corrective 

action, 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. 

Request To Reference New Temporary 

Revisions 

One commenter, an airplane operator, 

states that the proposed rule requires 

inspections using limits that were 

published in the aircraft maintenance 

manual (AMM) in October 2001. The 

commenter notes that these limits have 

all been revised, and now all have 

revision dates in 2003. In addition, the 

commenter states that if the new limits 

are not included in the proposed rule, 

then operators would be required to find 

and re-insert the older data into the 

AMM, which would negate two years of 

progress in maintaining the leading edge 

de-icer boots. 

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting that we use the revisions that 

were published in 2003. We partially 

agree with the commenter’s request. We 

have not revised paragraph (a) of the 

final rule to include the new AMM 

revisions because another suggestion by 

the same commenter (see ‘‘Request to 

Insert Limits Directly Into Final Rule’’) 

makes including a reference to these 

revisions in that paragraph unnecessary. 

However, we have listed these revisions 

in new Table 3 of new paragraph (c)(3) 

of the final rule (see ‘‘Explanation of 

New Paragraph (c)(3) of the Final 

Rule’’). In addition, because the 

requirements in the new revisions are 

less restrictive, those operators who 

have complied with the limits 

published in the 2001 revisions are still 

compliant with the intent of the final 

rule. Therefore, we have added new 

Table 4 and new paragraph (e) to the 

final rule that gives credit to operators 

who have accomplished the required 

actions in accordance with the 2001 

revisions of the AMM. 

Request To Insert Limits Directly Into 

Final Rule 

The same commenter suggests that, 

rather than referencing the AMMs for 

the necessary limits in paragraph (a) of 

the proposed rule, the FAA insert the 

necessary limits directly into paragraph 

(a). The commenter states that the 

chapters of the AMM referenced in 

paragraph (a) of the proposed rule 

contain significantly more information 

than apply to the patch limits that affect 

the stall margin. The commenter further 

states that the limits can be addressed 

concisely and, therefore, proposes that 

we specify the actual acceptance criteria 

in the proposed rule. The commenter 

states that this would allow operators to 

revise the AMMs as necessary to 

provide current information, yet would 

still mandate the limits that are 

required. The commenter also suggests 

that if paragraph (a) is changed as 

suggested, all references to the AMM in 

the proposed rule be changed to refer to 

paragraph (a). 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request to change paragraph (a) of the 

final rule and all references to it in the 

final rule for the stated reasons. 

Paragraph (a) has been revised to more 

clearly define the term, ‘‘patch limits’’

and to specify those specific limits. 

Additionally, all references to the AMM 

have been changed to refer to paragraph 

(a). We also have revised the Summary 

of the final rule to remove the reference 

to the limits in the critical zone ‘‘as 

defined in the AMM.’’

Request To Allow Ferry Flights 

The same commenter requests that we 

add a new paragraph to the final rule 

regarding ferry flights. The proposed 

paragraph would allow operators of any 

airplane that has de-icer boots that do 

not meet the AMM limits to ferry the 

airplane to a location where repairs can 

be made, provided the airplane is 

operated under the limits in Table 2 of 

the proposed rule. We infer that the 

operator would like the flexibility to 

move airplanes to convenient locations 

for repair without the need to request a 

special flight permit. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request to add a paragraph 

regarding ferry flights to the final rule. 

On July 10, 2002, we issued a new 

version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, 

July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA’s 

airworthiness directives system. The 

regulation now includes material that 

relates to special flight permits for ferry 

flights. As stated in 14 CFR 39.23: 

‘‘[T]he operations specifications giving 

some operators authority to operate 

include a provision that allow(s) them 

to fly their aircraft to a repair facility to 

do the work required by an 

airworthiness directive. If you do not 

have this authority, the local Flight 

Standards District Office of FAA may 

issue you a special flight permit unless 

the airworthiness directive states 

otherwise. To ensure aviation safety, 

FAA may add special requirements for 

operating your aircraft to a place where 

the repairs or modifications can be 

accomplished. FAA may also decline to 

issue a special flight permit in particular 

cases if we determine you cannot move 

the aircraft safely.’’ If an operator does 

not have the specified authority and 

requires a special flight permit, we will 

evaluate any request for a special flight 

permits on a case by case basis at the 

time of the request. We do not find it 

necessary to change the final rule in this 

regard.

Request To Address Varying Levels of 

Degradation 

Another commenter is concerned 

about varying levels of degradation of 

the de-icer boots in the affected fleet of 

airplanes. The commenter states that 

there may be airplanes in operation that 

do not exceed the limits in the proposed 

rule, but still have leading edge de-icer 

boots that are in a state of repair that 

may degrade the aerodynamic 

performance of the wing more than 

other airplanes with less damage. 

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting that we revise the proposed 

rule to address airplanes that carry 

varying levels of degradation. We do not 

agree. The limits in the final rule 

address the worst-case patch size and 

patch limits in the wing critical zone. In 

devising these limits, we assessed the 

amount of damage that is acceptable for 

safe flight without the performance 

penalties cited in Table 2 of this AD. 

These limits take into account the 

airplane aerodynamic characteristics 

and the smoothness of the boots. We 

have not changed the final rule in this 

regard. 

Request To Clarify Applicability of 

Performance Penalties 

The same commenter states that it is 

unclear if the performance penalties 

cited in Table 2 of the proposed rule are 

to be included only in the airplane flight 

manuals (AFM) of airplanes that have 

boot patches that exceed the patchnumber limits, or if the penalties will be 

applicable to all Model DHC–8 airplanes 

in a given operator’s fleet until all of the 

proposed inspections and replacements 

are completed. 

From these statements, we infer that 

the commenter is requesting that we 

clarify the applicability of the 

performance penalties listed in Table 2 

of the proposed rule. We do not agree 

that is necessary to change the 

applicability of the final rule to make 

this clarification. As stated in paragraph 

(c) of the final rule, the performance 

penalties apply only to airplanes that 

require corrective actions. Airplanes 

that require corrective actions are those 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58045

that have boot patches that exceed the 

limits specified in the AMM. We have 

not changed the final rule in this regard. 

However, we have clarified paragraphs 

(c) and (c)(1) of the final rule based on 

the addition of a new paragraph (c)(3) to 

the final rule. These changes are 

described below in ‘‘Explanation of New 

Paragraph (c)(3) of the Final Rule’’ and 

‘‘Explanation of Clarifications Made in 

Paragraphs (c) and (c)(1) of the Final 

Rule.’’

Request To Reduce Compliance Time 

for Replacements 

The same commenter requests that we 

reduce the 24-month compliance time 

replacing the wing de-icer boots, which 

is specified in paragraph (c)(2) of the 

proposed rule. The commenter states 

that a 24-month compliance time could 

allow some airplanes to be exposed to 

icing conditions for up to three icing 

seasons. 

We do not agree with the request for 

a shorter compliance time in paragraph 

(c)(2) of the final rule. In developing the 

proposed compliance time, we 

considered the fact that there have been 

no occurrences of stall problems in the 

past, and that an airplane that requires 

corrective action is bound to the 

performance penalties in Table 2 of the 

final rule during this 24-month period. 

We determined that the compliance is 

appropriate in consideration of the 

safety implications, the average 

utilization rate of the affected fleet, the 

practical aspects of an orderly 

inspection of the fleet, and the 

availability of required modification 

parts. We have not changed the final 

rule in this regard. 

Request for Ongoing Monitoring 

Program 

The same commenter requests that 

there be a clearly delineated ongoing 

program included in the proposed rule 

to monitor the number and size of 

patches on the new boots in order to 

stay in compliance with AMM limits. 

The commenter is concerned that the 

proposed rule is not clear about how 

operators should monitor the number 

and size of boot patches on the new 

boots after replacement, and still stay in 

compliance with the AMM limits. 

We do not agree that it is necessary 

to delineate a monitoring program. 

Paragraph (d) of the final rule states that 

‘‘as of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install—on any airplane—a 

de-icer boot patch in the critical zone of 

the wing de-icer boots that exceeds the 

patch limits specified in paragraph (b) 

of this AD.’’ Paragraph (d) of this AD is 

intended to prevent the installation of 

any patches beyond the specified limits. 

Therefore, after the boot replacements 

have been made, it is unnecessary to 

institute an ongoing monitoring 

program. We have not changed the final 

rule in this regard. 

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 

described previously. We have 

determined that these changes will 

neither increase the economic burden 

on any operator nor increase the scope 

of the AD. 

Explanation of New Paragraph (c)(3) of 

the Final Rule 

Paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule gives 

operators two methods to choose from 

for replacing the de-icer boots: 

• In accordance with a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE–

172, FAA, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office; or 

• In accordance with a method 

approved by Transport Canada Civil 

Aviation (or its delegated agent). 

The paragraph further states that the 

applicable chapter of the AMM 

referenced in Table 3 of paragraph (c)(3) 

of the final rule is ‘‘one approved 

method.’’

We find that allowing operators to 

accomplish the actions according to one 

of the cited methods will not impose 

additional burden for operators to 

comply with the actions in the AD. 

Explanation of Clarifications Made in 

Paragraphs (c) and (c)(1) of the Final 

Rule 

Adding paragraph (c)(3) to this final 

rule made it necessary to clarify the 

statements in paragraphs (c) and (c)(1) 

of the final rule. Paragraph (c) of the 

final rule now specifically requires 

operators of airplanes that require 

corrective actions to do the actions in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2). Paragraph 

(c)(1) of the final rule now also refers to 

airplanes that have findings that exceed 

the patch limits in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule. 

Cost Impact 

We estimate that 200 airplanes of U.S. 

registry will be affected by this AD, that 

it will take approximately 2 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 

$26,000, or $130 per airplane. 

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:

58046 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

2004–20–03 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de 

Havilland, Inc.): Amendment 39–13808. 

Docket 2002–NM–126–AD.

Applicability: All Model DHC–8–101, 

–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, –301, –311, 

and –315 airplanes; certificated in any 

category. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent reduced aerodynamic 

smoothness of the wing leading edge de-icer 

boots and possible reduced stall margin, 

which could result in a significant increase 

in stall speeds, leading to a possible stall 

prior to activation of the stall warning; 

accomplish the following:

Critical Zone Limits and Patch Limits 

(a) For the purposes of this AD, the 

‘‘critical zone’’ and ‘‘patch limits’’ are 

defined in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (a)(2) of this AD. 

(1) The wing ‘‘critical zone’’ is the area of 

the leading edge assemblies that represents 

3% of the chord. The critical zone may be 

found by measuring from the aft edge of a 

leading edge assembly, going forward on the 

upper surface and lower surface. The 

measurements identify the aft limits of the 

critical zone, as shown in Table 1 of this AD.

TABLE 1.—LIMITS OF CRITICAL ZONE

[In inches] 

Spanwise region 

Measured 

along lower 

surface 

Measured 

along upper 

surface 

YW63.00–YW139.00 ............................................................................................................................................... 13.0 131⁄4

YW202.00–YW288.00 ............................................................................................................................................. 101⁄4 101⁄2

YW288.00–YW326.00 ............................................................................................................................................. 91⁄2 93⁄4

YW326.00–YW405.00 ............................................................................................................................................. 8.0 81⁄4

YW405.00–YW790.00 ............................................................................................................................................. 61/2 63⁄4

YW490.00–YW520.00 (series 300 only) ................................................................................................................. 61⁄4 61⁄2

(2) ‘‘Patch limits’’ regarding the number 

and size of patches are defined as follows: 

(i) Three small 11⁄4 × 21⁄2 inch (3.17 × 6.35 

centimeters (cm)) patches for each 12-inch 

square (929.0 square cm). 

(ii) Two medium 21⁄2 × 5 inch (6.35 × 12.70 

cm) patches for each 12-inch square. 

(iii) One large 5 × 10 inches (12.70 × 25.40 

cm) patch for each 12-inch square. 

(3) ‘‘Patch limits’’ regarding the number or 

total percentage of patches that may be 

concentrated together in one area of the wing 

de-icer boot are defined as follows: The 

spanwise length of each patch in the critical 

zone, added together, may be no greater than 

62.5% of the total length of the boot. A patch 

is considered to be in the critical zone if any 

part of the patch is in the critical zone. 

Patches may be concentrated together in one 

area of the boot as long as one patch is not 

applied over part of another patch; patches 

may not overlap. 

Detailed Inspection 

(b) Within 60 days after the effective date 

of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection of 

the wing leading edge de-icer boots to 

determine if the de-icer boots comply with 

the patch limits in the wing critical zone as 

defined in paragraph (a) of this AD.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An 

intensive visual examination of a specific 

structural area, system, installation, or 

assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by 

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, 

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate access procedures 

may be required.’’

(1) If all de-icer boots are within the patch 

limits in the critical zone, no further action 

is required by this paragraph. 

(2) If any de-icer boot exceeds the patch 

limits in the critical zone, accomplish the 

corrective actions required by paragraph (c) 

of this AD. 

Corrective Actions 

(c) For airplanes that require corrective 

actions, as described in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (c)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Before further flight after the finding of 

any de-icer boot that exceeds the patch limits 

per paragraph (b)(2) of this AD: Insert the 

contents of Table 2 of this AD in the 

Limitations Section of the aircraft flight 

manual (AFM) and advise flightcrews to 

comply with the performance penalties in 

Table 2 of this AD. 

(2) Within 24 months after the effective 

date of this AD, replace all wing de-icer boots 

that exceed the patch limits in the critical 

zone as defined in paragraph (a) of this AD, 

with new de-icer boots, per paragraph (c)(3) 

of this AD. Remove the contents of Table 2 

of this AD from the AFM, and terminate the 

requirements to comply with the 

performance penalties after all replacements 

are accomplished.

TABLE 2.—PERFORMANCE PENALTIES

AFM sections AFM limits with de-ice boot patch limits exceeded

(Note: Flap settings as applicable to aircraft model) 

T/O Speed: Sub-Section 5–2: 

V1, Vr & V2 ......................................................................................... Add: 5 kt (flap 0°); 5 kt (flap 5°); 5 kt (flap 10°); 5 kt (flap 15°). 

Final T/O Climb Speed ...................................................................... Add: 5 kt (flap 0°). 

T/O WAT Limit: Sub-Section 5–3: 

Note: Weight reduction not required when limited by maximum 

structural weight.

Subtract: 18 kg, 400 lb. (flap 0°); 90 kg, 200 lb. (flap 5°); No change 

(flap 10°); No change (flap 15°). 

T/O Climb: Sub-Section 5–4: 

1st Seg. Gradient .............................................................................. Subtract: 0.008 (flap 0°); 0.004 (flap 5°); 0.004 (flap 10°); 0.004 (flap 

15°). 

2nd Seg. Gradient ............................................................................. Subtract: 0.005 (flap 0°); 0.002 (flap 5°); 0.002 (flap 10°); 0.002 (flap 

15°). 

Final Seg. Gradient ........................................................................... Subtract: 0.009 (flap 0°). 

T/O Field Length: Sub-Section 5–5: 

TOR, TOD & ASD ............................................................................. Add: 16% (flap 0°); 16% (flap 5°); 16% (flap 10°); 16% (flap 15°). 

Net T/O Flight Path: Sub-Section 5–6: 

Ref Gradient ...................................................................................... Subtract: 0.005 (flap 0°); 0.002 (flap 5°); 0.002 (flap 10°); 0.002 (flap 

15°). 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58047

TABLE 2.—PERFORMANCE PENALTIES—Continued

AFM sections AFM limits with de-ice boot patch limits exceeded

(Note: Flap settings as applicable to aircraft model) 

4th Seg. Net Gradient ....................................................................... Subtract: 0.012 (flap 0°). 

Flap Retraction Initiation Speed ........................................................ Add: 5 kt (flap 5°); 5 kt (flap 10°); 5 kt (flap 15°). 

Enroute Climb Data: Sub-Section 5–7: 

Enroute Climb Speed ........................................................................ Add: 5 kt. 

Net Climb Gradient ............................................................................ Subtract: 0.004. 

OEI-Climb Ceiling .............................................................................. Subtract: 1,200 ft. 

Landing Speed: Sub-Section 5–8: 

Approach, Go-around & Vref ............................................................ Add: 5 kt (flap 5°); 5 kt (flap 10°); 5 kt (flap 15°); 5 kt (flap 35°). 

Landing WAT Limit: Sub-Section 5–9: 

Note: Weight reduction not required when limited by maximum 

structural weight.

Subtract: 860 kg, 1,900 lb.(flap 10°); 225 kg, 500 lb. (flap 15°); 180 kg, 

400 lb. (flap 35°). 

Landing Climb Data: Sub-Section 5–10: 

Approach Gross Climb Gradient ....................................................... Subtract: 0.010 (flap 5°); 0.003 (flap 10°); 0.002 (flap 15°). 

Balked Landing Gross Climb Gradient ............................................. Subtract: 0.035 (flap 10°); 0.017 (flap 15°); 0.016 (flap 35°). 

Landing Field Length: Sub-Section 5–11: Add: 23% (flap 10°); 16% (flap 15°); 10% (flap 35°). 

Brake Energy: Sub-Section 5–12: 

Accel/Stop B.E .................................................................................. Add: 7% (flap 0°); 7% (flap 5°); 7% (flap 10°); (flap 15°). 

Landing B.E ....................................................................................... Add: 30% (flap 10°); 20% (flap 15°); 8% (flap 35°). 

(3) Do the replacements described in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this AD per a method 

approved by either the Manager, Systems and 

Flight Test Branch, ANE–172, FAA, New 

York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), or 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or 

its delegated agent). The applicable chapter 

of the applicable Bombardier Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM) or in the 

temporary revision listed in Table 3 of this 

AD is one approved method.

TABLE 3.—AMM REFERENCE

Model AMM Product support 

manual (PSM) Chapter Temporary revision (TR) Date 

DHC–8–101, –102, –103, and –106 Series 100 ........... 1–8–2 .................. 30–10–48 ............ TR 30–35 ............ October 28, 2003. 

DHC–8–201, and –202 ..................... Series 200 ........... 1–82–2 ................ 30–12–00 ............ TR 30–025 .......... August 28, 2003. 

DHC–8–301, –311, and –315 ........... Series 300 ........... 1–83–2 ................ 30–10–48 ............ TR 30–25 ............ October 21, 2003. 

Parts Installation 

(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install—on any airplane—a deicer boot patch in the critical zone of the 

wing de-icer boots that exceeds the patch 

limits specified in paragraph (a) of this AD. 

Actions Accomplished Previously 

(e) Actions that were accomplished before 

the effective date of this AD per the 

applicable chapters of the following AMMs is 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding action in this AD: DHC–8–

101, –102, and –106 Series 100 AMM, PSM 

1–8–2, Chapter 30–10–48, Revision 49, dated 

October 3, 2001; DHC–8–201, and –202 

Series 200 AMM, PSM 1–82–2, Chapter 30–

12–00, Revision 11, dated October 19, 2001; 

and Temporary Revision 30–21 to the DHC–

8–301, –311, and –315 Series 300 AMM, PSM 

1–83–2, Chapter 30–10–48, dated October 30, 

2001. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, New York ACO, FAA, is authorized 

to approve alternative methods of 

compliance for this AD.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

2001–43, dated November 23, 2001.

Effective Date 

(g) This amendment becomes effective on 

November 3, 2004.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 16, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21646 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA–2004–18824; Airspace 

Docket No. 04–ACE–50] 

Modification of Class D Airspace; and 

Modification of Class E Airspace; 

Joplin, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This action amends Title 14 

Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 

CFR 71) by revising Class D and Class 

E airspace areas at Joplin, MO. A review 

of the controlled airspace areas at 

Joplin, MO revealed noncompliance 

with criteria for diverse departures from 

Joplin Regional Airport. The review also 

identified other discrepancies in the 

legal descriptions for the Joplin, MO 

Class E airspace areas. The intended 

effect of this rule is to provide 

controlled airspace of appropriate 

dimensions to protect aircraft departing 

from and executing Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedures (SIAPs) to Joplin 

Regional Airport. It also corrects 

discrepancies in the legal descriptions 

of Joplin, MO Class D and Class E 

airspace areas and brings the airspace 

areas and legal descriptions into 

compliance with FAA Orders.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

on 0901 UTC, January 20, 2005. 

Comments for inclusion in the Rules 

Docket must be received on or before 

November 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the Docket Management 

System, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. You must identify the