30028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), or (h)(4) of this AD, as

applicable. Repeat this inspection thereafter

at intervals not to exceed 2,400 landings.

Accomplishment of the ultrasonic

inspection constitutes terminating action for

the repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraphs (a) through (f), (f)(2)(i), and (g) of

this AD.

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated

between 15,000 and 24,999 total landings as

of the effective date of this AD: Within 2,000

landings or 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated

between 25,000 and 29,999 total landings as

of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,200

landings or 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(3) For airplanes that have accumulated

between 30,000 and 34,999 total landings as

of the effective date of this AD: Within 900

landings or 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(4) For airplanes that have accumulated

35,000 or more total landings as of the

effective date of this AD: Within 600 landings

or 6 months after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later.

(i) For airplanes on which the

modification/replacement specified in

paragraph (f)(2)(ii) or (n) of this AD has not

been accomplished, and on which the

replacement specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of

this AD has been accomplished: Except as

provided by paragraph (m) of this AD,

perform an ultrasonic inspection of the

engine pylon aft upper spar straps (caps) to

detect cracking, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

DC9–54A031, Revision 08, dated January 31,

2000; at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1),

(i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD, as applicable.

Repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 2,400 landings.

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated

between 15,000 and 24,999 landings since

installation of the new spar strap (cap):

Within 2,000 landings or 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later.

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated

between 25,000 and 29,999 landings since

installation of the new spar strap (cap):

Within 1,200 landings or 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later.

(3) For airplanes that have accumulated

between 30,000 and 34,999 landings since

installation of the new spar strap (cap):

Within 900 landings or 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later.

(4) For airplanes that have accumulated

35,000 or more landings since installation of

the new spar strap (cap): Within 600 landings

or 6 months after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later.

(j) If no cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (h), (i), or

(m) of this AD, prior to further flight, reapply

sealant in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9–54A031,

Revision 08, dated January 31, 2000.

(k) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of

this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish

the actions specified in paragraph (m) of this

AD.

(l) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (h), (i), or

(m) of this AD, prior to further flight, modify

the rear spar upper strap (cap) in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 54–31, Revision 4, dated March 28,

1991. Accomplishment of the modification

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.

(m) In lieu of accomplishing the ultrasonic

inspection required by paragraphs (h) and (i)

of this AD, at the applicable times specified

in paragraphs (h), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), (h)(4),

(i), (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD,

perform a magnetic particle inspection of the

engine pylon aft upper spar strap (cap) for

cracks, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9–54A031,

Revision 08, dated January 31, 2000. If no

cracking is detected, prior to further flight,

replace the bearing on the spar strap (cap)

with a new annular groove bearing, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

Terminating Modification

(n) Prior to the accumulation of 100,000

total landings, or within 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, modify the rear spar upper strap (cap)

in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC–

9 Service Bulletin 54–31, Revision 4, dated

March 28, 1991. Accomplishment of the

modification constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.

(o) Accomplishment of the modification

required by paragraph (l) or (n) of this AD

constitutes compliance with the following:

(1) The actions specified in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin 54–27, Revision 4,

dated April 2, 1990, that are required by AD

96–10–11, amendment 39–9618 (61 FR

24675, May 16, 1996) [which references

‘‘DC–9/MD80 Aging Aircraft Service Action

Requirements Document’’ (SARD),

McDonnell Douglas Report MDC K1572,

Revision B, dated January 15, 1993, as the

appropriate source of service information for

accomplishment of the modification]; and

(2) The requirements of AD 72–09–01,

amendment 39–2844 (which references

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 54–31,

dated August 24, 1976, and McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin 54–27, Revision 4,

dated April 2, 1990, as appropriate sources

of service information for accomplishment of

the modification).

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(p) 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 Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport 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, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Note 6: Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

78–01–16, amendment 39–3117, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Special Flight Permits

(q) 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. 00–11722 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–60–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8 series

–10 through –50, –61, –61F, –71, –71F

airplanes, that currently requires a

visual or eddy current inspection(s) of

the left and right wing front spar lower

caps to detect cracks migrating from

attachment holes; and repair, if

necessary. That AD also provided for an

optional terminating modification of the

front spar lower cap. This proposal is

prompted by a report that additional

cracking was found in the front spar

lower cap of a wing. This action would

require accomplishment of the

previously optional terminating action.

The proposed AD also would expand

the applicability of the existing AD to

include additional airplanes and to

increase the interval for the repetitive

eddy current inspections. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent reduced structural

integrity of the left or right wing due to

metal fatigue failure of the front spar

lower cap.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 26, 2000.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30029

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

60–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.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group,

Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Dept. C1–L51 (2–60). This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

DiLibero, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (562) 627–

5231; fax (562) 627–5210.

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 99–NM–60–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.

99–NM–60–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On September 26, 1986, the FAA

issued AD 86–20–06, amendment 39–

5434 (51 FR 35502, October 6, 1986),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8–10 through –50

inclusive, –61, –61F, –71, –71F series

airplanes, to require repetitive visual or

eddy current inspections to detect

cracks of the left and right wing front

spar lower caps between stations

Xfs=515.00 and Xfs=526.760; and

repair, if necessary. That AD also

provides for an optional terminating

modification for the repetitive

inspection requirements. That action

was prompted by reports of fatigue

cracking on the spar caps of two

airplanes. The requirements of that AD

are intended to prevent reduced

structural integrity of the left or right

wing due to metal fatigue failure of the

front spar lower cap.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 86–20–06,

the FAA has received a report of two

instances in which cracking was found

in the front spar lower cap of a wing on

affected airplanes that have

accumulated between 46,093 and 48,942

flight hours. The cracking originated at

an attachment hole in the forward leg

and progressed to a point partially

through the vertical and aft leg of the

spar cap. The cause of such cracking has

been attributed to material fatigue. The

FAA has determined that

accomplishment of the visual

inspection(s) required by AD 86–20–06

does not adequately ensure timely

detection of fatigue cracks in the subject

area.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Subsequent to the finding of this new

cracking, the manufacturer issued, and

the FAA reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC8–57–090, Revision 05, dated June

16, 1997. The eddy current inspection

and modification procedures are

identical to those described in

McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service

Bulletin 57–90, dated October 3, 1983

(which was referenced as the

appropriate source of service

information in AD 86–20–06). The only

changes effected by Revision 05 of the

service bulletin are to remove the

inadequate visual inspection

procedures; to add additional airplanes

to the effectivity listing; and to add an

inspection following accomplishment of

the preventative modification.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin 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

supersede AD 86–20–06 to continue to

require an eddy current inspection(s) to

detect cracks of the lower front spar

caps of the wings at the attachment

holes of the leading edge assembly

between stations Xfs=515.000 and

Xfs=526.760, and corrective actions, if

necessary. The proposed AD would

require accomplishment of the

previously optional terminating action

and a follow-on inspection. The

proposed AD also would expand the

applicability of the existing AD to

include additional airplanes that are

subject to the identified unsafe

condition of this AD and to increase the

interval for the repetitive eddy current

inspections.

Differences Between the Proposed Rule

and the Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

the service bulletin recommends that

the repetitive eddy current inspections

be accomplished at intervals not to

exceed 3,600 flight hours or 1 year,

whichever occurs first, the proposed AD

would require those inspection at

intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight

hours or 3 years, whichever occurs first.

The FAA consulted with the

manufacturer and has determined

through a damage tolerance assessment

that the subject fatigue cracking is

dependant only on flight hours.

However, because some affected

airplanes have very low utilization

rates, the FAA has determined that

extending the calendar year repetitive

inspection interval from 1 year to 3

years will ensure that the inspection is

accomplished within an acceptable time

frame. Therefore, the proposed rule

would require that the eddy current

inspection interval be 3,600 flight hours

or 3 years, whichever occurs first.

Although the service bulletin

recommends accomplishing the eddy

30030 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

current inspection within 3,200 flight

hours after the issue date of the service

bulletin on airplanes that have

accumulated 30,000 total flight hours,

the proposed AD requires, for certain

airplanes, that the inspection be

accomplished within 3,200 flight hours

or 2 years after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs first. In

developing an appropriate compliance

time for this AD, the FAA considered

not only the manufacturer’s

recommendation, but the degree of

urgency associated with addressing the

subject unsafe condition, the average

utilization of the affected fleet, and the

time necessary to perform the

inspection (two hours). In addition, the

FAA has determined that all affected

airplanes have accumulated 30,000 or

more total flight cycles. In light of all of

these factors, the FAA finds a

compliance time of within 3,200 flight

hours or 2 years after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs first, for

initiating the proposed actions to be

warranted, in that it represents an

appropriate interval of time allowable

for affected airplanes to continue to

operate without compromising safety.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 294 Model

DC–8 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 251 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 2 work

hours 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 inspection proposed by this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$30,120, or $120 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

It would take approximately between

12 and 14 work hours per airplane to

accomplish the proposed modification,

and that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts would cost

approximately between $303 and $1,202

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be between

$256,773, or $512,542, or between

$1,023, or $2,042 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

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:

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

removing amendment 39–5434 (51 FR

35502, October 6, 1986), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 99–NM–60–AD.

Supersedes AD 86–20–06, Amendment

39–5434.

Applicability: Model DC–8 series airplanes,

as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC8–57–090, Revision 05, dated

June 16, 1997; 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 (h)(1) 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 reduced structural integrity of

the left or right wing due to metal fatigue

failure of the front spar lower cap,

accomplish the following:

Note 2: This AD will affect the inspections,

corrective actions, and reports required by

AD 93–01–15, amendment 39–8469 (58 FR

5576, January 22, 1993), for Principal

Structural Elements (PSE) 57.08.021 and

57.08.022 of the DC–8 Supplemental

Inspection Document (SID).

Note 3: Where there are differences

between this AD and the referenced service

bulletin, the AD prevails.

Eddy Current Inspection

(a) For Model DC–8–10 through DC–8–50,

inclusive, DC–8–61, –61F, –71, and –71F

series airplanes, equipped with left or right

wing front spar lower cap, part number (P/

N) 5597838–1 or –2; not modified in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC–8

Service Bulletin 57–90, dated October 3,

1983: Perform an eddy current inspection to

detect cracks of the lower front spar caps of

the wings at the attachment holes of the

leading edge assembly between stations

Xfs=515.000 and Xfs=526.760, in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC8–57–090, Revision 05, dated June 16,

1997; at the time specified in either

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD,

as applicable.

Note 4: Eddy current inspections

accomplished prior to the effective date of

this AD in accordance 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; are

considered acceptable for compliance with

the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes on which the immediately

preceding inspection was conducted using

eddy current techniques in accordance with

AD 86–20–06 prior to the effective date of

this AD: Inspect within 3,600 flight hours or

3 years after accomplishment of the last eddy

current inspection, whichever occurs first.

(2) For airplanes on which the immediately

preceding inspection was conducted visually

in accordance with AD 86–20–06 prior to the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within

3,200 flight hours or 2 years after

accomplishment of the last visual inspection,

whichever occurs first.

(3) For airplanes on which a visual or eddy

current inspection or the modification

required by AD 86–20–06 has not been

accomplished: Inspect prior to the

accumulation of 30,000 total flight hours, or

within 200 flight hours after the effective

date of this AD.

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.