Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30031

(b) For airplanes other than those

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD: Within

3,200 flight hours or 2 years after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first, perform the eddy current inspection

specified in paragraph (a) of this AD.

Repetitive Inspections

(c) If no crack is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, repeat the

eddy current inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours or

3 years, whichever occurs first.

Repair

(d) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required this AD, prior to further

flight, accomplish the action specified in

either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD,

as applicable.

(1) For cracks within the limits specified in

Conditions 2 through 6, inclusive, Table 1 of

paragraph 3.B.4 of the Accomplishment

Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC8–57–090, Revision 05, dated

June 16, 1997: Modify the lower front spar

cap in accordance with McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC8–57–090, Revision 05,

dated June 16, 1997. Accomplishment of the

modification constitutes compliance with the

requirements paragraphs (c) and (e) of this

AD.

(2) For cracks that exceed the limits

specified in Conditions 2 through 6,

inclusive, Table 1 of paragraph 3.B.4 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–090,

Revision 05, dated June 16, 1997: Repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

Preventative Modification

(e) Within 100,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, modify the lower

front spar cap in accordance with paragraph

3.B.2.B of the Accomplishment Instructions

of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–

57–090, Revision 05, dated June 16, 1997.

Accomplishment of the modification

constitutes compliance with the

requirements paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of

this AD.

Note 5: Modification of the lower front spar

cap accomplished prior to the effective date

of this AD in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–90,

Revision 1, dated June 16, 1988; Revision 2,

dated March 1, 1991; Revision 3, dated

March 25, 1992; or Revision 4, dated March

3, 1995; is considered acceptable for

compliance with the requirements of

paragraph (d) of this AD.

(f) Accomplishment of the modification

required by paragraph B. of AD 90–16–05,

amendment 39–6614 (55 FR 31818, August 6,

1990) [which references ‘‘DC–8 Aging

Aircraft Service Action Requirements

Document’’ (SARD), McDonnell Douglas

Report MDC K1579, Revision A, dated March

1, 1990, as the appropriate source of service

information for accomplishing the

modification] constitutes compliance with

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) of this AD.

Follow-On Inspection

(g) Prior to the accumulation of 32,900 total

flight hours following accomplishment of the

modification required by either paragraph

(d)(1) or (e) of this AD, or 2 years after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform an inspection to detect cracks

in the area specified in paragraph (a) of this

AD, and corrective actions, if necessary, in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(h)(1) 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, Los

Angeles ACO. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 6: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

86–20–06, amendment 39–5434, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Special Flight Permits

(i) 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 May 3,

2000.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–11721 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–368–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

(Beech) Model MU–300, MU–300–10,

400, and 400A Series 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 all

Raytheon (Beech) Model MU–300, MU–

300–10, 400, and 400A series airplanes.

This proposal would require repetitive

inspections of the bleed air supply tube

assemblies for discrepancies; and

replacement of the bleed air tube

assembly with a new bleed air tube

assembly, if necessary. In lieu of

accomplishing the repetitive

inspections, this proposal also would

provide for a revision of the

Airworthiness Limitations to

incorporate, among other things, certain

inspections and compliance times to

detect discrepancies of the subject area;

and corrective action, if necessary. This

proposal is prompted by reports of

broken wire braiding in the bellows

assembly of the bleed air supply tube

assembly due to premature failure from

loading. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

the bleed air supply tube assembly from

disconnecting and contacting other

pneumatic or electrical systems of the

airplane or expelling high temperature

air on surrounding systems and

structure. Such a condition could

reduce the functional capabilities of the

airplane or the ability of the flight crew

to cope with adverse operating

conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

368–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager

Service Engineering, Beechjet Premier

Technical Support, 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, Small

Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

C. DeVore, Aerospace Engineer, Systems

and Propulsion Branch, ACE–116W,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas,

67209, telephone, (316) 946–4142; fax,

(316) 946–4407.

30032 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

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 notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 98–NM–368–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.

98–NM–368–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports of

broken wire braiding in the bellows

assembly of the bleed air supply tube

assembly on Raytheon (Beech) Model

MU–300, MU–300–10, 400, and 400A

series airplanes. Investigation revealed

that the stainless steel wire mesh

braiding that restrains the bellows is

subject to loading, which causes the

braiding to fail prematurely. Failure of

the wire braiding, if not corrected, could

cause the bleed air supply tube

assembly to disconnect and contact

other pneumatic or electrical systems of

the airplane or expel high temperature

air on surrounding systems and

structure. Such a condition could

reduce the functional capabilities of the

airplane or the ability of the flight crew

to cope with adverse operating

conditions.

New Revisions to Airworthiness

Limitations Section

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Chapter 4, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations’’

of Raytheon Aircraft Beechjet 400/400A

Maintenance Manual (for Model MU–

300–10, 400, and 400A series airplanes),

Revision B23, dated December 18, 1998,

and Section MR–11–00, ‘‘Airworthiness

Limitations’’ of Raytheon Aircraft

Diamond 1/1A MU–300 Maintenance

Requirement Manual (for Model MU–

300 series airplanes), Revision 8, dated

December 18, 1998. These revisions

describe, among other things, specific

inspection and compliance times to

detect broken wire braids, leakage, or

rupture of the bellows assembly in the

bleed air supply tube assembly; and

corrective action, if necessary. The

corrective action involves replacement

of the bleed air tube assembly with a

new bleed air tube assembly.

Accomplishment of the procedures

specified in the Airworthiness

Limitations Section (ALS) or the

repetitive inspections described below

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 repetitive general visual

inspections of the bleed air supply tube

assemblies for broken wire braiding on

the bellows assemblies or for ruptured

or leaking bellow assemblies; and

replacement of the bleed air tube

assembly with a new bleed air tube

assembly, if necessary. In lieu of

accomplishing the repetitive

inspections, the proposed AD also

would provide for a revision of the ALS

of Raytheon Aircraft Beechjet 400/400A

Maintenance Manual (for Model MU–

300–10, 400, and 400A series airplanes),

and Raytheon Aircraft Diamond 1/1A

MU–300 Maintenance Manual (for

Model MU–300 series airplanes) to

incorporate Revision B23, dated

December 18, 1998 (for Model MU–300–

10, 400, and 400A series airplanes), and

Revision 8, dated December 18, 1998

(for Model MU–300 series airplanes); as

applicable.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 530

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

452 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 1 work hour

per airplane 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 $27,120, or $60 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

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.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

AD action, it would take approximately

1 work hour to accomplish it, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the optional terminating action would

be $60 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30033

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 (Formerly

Beech): Docket 98–NM–368–AD.

Applicability: All Model MU–300, MU–

300–10, 400, and 400A series airplanes,

certificated in any category.

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 (d) 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 the bleed air supply tube

assembly from disconnecting and contacting

other pneumatic or electrical systems of the

airplane or expelling high temperature air on

surrounding systems and structure, which

could result in reduced functional

capabilities of the airplane or the ability of

the flight crew to cope with adverse

operating conditions; accomplish the

following:

Inspection

(a) Within 200 hours time-in-service after

the effective date of this AD, except as

provided by paragraph (b) of this AD,

perform a general visual inspection of the

bleed air supply tube assemblies for broken

wire braiding on the bellows assemblies or

for ruptured or leaking bellow assemblies.

The bleed air supply tube assemblies are

located within the aft fuselage and connect

to mating ducting in the pylon area on the

right and left side of the airplane. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 400 hours time-in-service. If any

broken wire is detected or if any bellow

assembly is ruptured or leaking, prior to

further flight, replace the bleed air tube

assembly with a new bleed air tube assembly.

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 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.’’

Optional Implementation of Airworthiness

Limitations Section

(b) Instead of accomplishing the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD,

revise the Airworthiness Limitations Sections

of the Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness by incorporating the

procedures specified in Chapter 4,

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations’’ of Raytheon

Aircraft Beechjet 400/400A Maintenance

Manual, Revision B23, dated December 18,

1998 (for Model MU–300–10, 400, and 400A

series airplanes); or Section MR–11–00,

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations’’ of Raytheon

Aircraft Diamond 1/1A MU–300

Maintenance Requirement Manual, Revision

8, dated December 18, 1998 (for Model MU–

300 series airplanes); as applicable.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of

this AD: After the action specified in

paragraph (b) of this AD has been

accomplished, no alternative inspections or

inspection intervals may be approved for the

part specified in paragraph (b) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) 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

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate. 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

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with § 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 May 3,

2000.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–11720 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–207–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 and A300–600 Series 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 Airbus Model A300 and A300–

600 series airplanes. This proposal

would require a high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect

cracking of the rear fittings of fuselage

frame FR40 at stringer 27, and repetitive

inspections or repair, as applicable. In

lieu of accomplishing the repetitive

inspections, this proposal requires a

modification that would allow the

inspection to be deferred for a certain

period of time. This proposal is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to detect and correct

fatigue cracking of the rear fittings of

fuselage frame FR40 at stringer 27,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

207–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax

(425) 227–1149.

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