Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37311

(c) Your business has submitted a

reasonable cost estimate for the

proposed mitigation measure and has

chosen to undertake a mitigation

measure that is likely to accomplish the

desired mitigation result (SBA’s

determination of this point is not a

guaranty that the project will prevent

damage in future disasters),

(d) Your business is credit worthy,

and

(e) There is a reasonable assurance of

loan repayment in accordance with the

terms of a loan agreement.

§ 123.410 When will SBA make funding

decisions?

SBA will not make funding decisions

until sixty calendar days after the

announced opening of the application

filing period (as published in the

Federal Register). SBA will notify you

in writing if your loan request doesn’t

meet the criteria specified in § 123.409.

§ 123.411 Which loan requests will SBA

fund?

SBA will date and time stamp each

application (loan request) when we

determine that it is complete. SBA will

fund loan requests meeting the selection

criteria specified in § 123.409 on a first

come, first served basis using this date

and time stamp. SBA will fund loan

requests in this order until it allocates

all program funds. SBA will notify you

in writing of its funding decision.

§ 123.412 What if SBA determines that

your business loan request meets the

selection criteria of § 123.409 but SBA is

unable to fund it because SBA has already

allocated all program funds?

If SBA determines that your business’

loan request meets the selection criteria

of § 123.409 but we are unable to fund

it because we have already allocated all

program funds, your request will be

given priority status, based on the

original filing date, once more program

funds become available. However, if

more than 6 months pass since SBA

determined to fund your request, SBA

may request updated or additional

financial information.

§ 123.413 What happens if SBA declines

your business’ pre-disaster mitigation loan

request?

If SBA declines your business’ loan

request, SBA will notify your business

in writing giving specific reasons for

decline. If your business disagrees with

SBA’s decision, it may respond in

accordance with § 123.13. If SBA

reverses its decision, SBA will use the

date it accepted your business’ request

for reconsideration or appeal as the

basis for determining the order of

funding.

Dated: May 25, 2000.

Aida Alvarez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–13812 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–29–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company Beech Models 1900,

1900C, and 1900D Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain

Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon)

Beech Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D

airplanes. The proposed AD would

require you to modify the cockpit voice

recorder (CVR) system. The proposed

AD is the result of instances where the

recording quality of the CVR in the

affected airplanes was so poor that the

information was practically

unrecoverable. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to correct

substandard quality cockpit voice

recordings caused by the configuration

of the present CVR system, which could

affect air safety if important information

that the CVR provides is not available

after an accident. This information

helps determine the probable cause of

an accident and aids in developing

necessary corrective action or design

changes to prevent future accidents.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this rule on or before

August 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–29–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. Comments may be

inspected at this location between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from the

Raytheon Aircraft Company, PO Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; telephone:

(800) 625–7043 or (316) 676–4556. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Harvey E. Nero, Aerospace Engineer,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4137; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites comments on this

proposed rule. You may submit

whatever written data, views, or

arguments you choose. You need to

include the rule’s docket number and

submit your comments in triplicate to

the address specified under the caption

‘‘ADDRESSES.’’ The FAA will consider all

comments received on or before the

closing date. We may amend the

proposed rule in light of comments

received. Factual information that

supports your ideas and suggestions is

extremely helpful in evaluating the

effectiveness of the proposed AD action

and determining whether we need to

take additional rulemaking action.

The FAA is re-examining the writing

style we presently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on whether

the style of this document is clearer, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

The FAA specifically invites

comments on the overall regulatory,

economic, environmental, and energy

aspects of the proposed rule that might

suggest a need to modify the rule. You

may examine all comments we receive

before and after the closing date of the

rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a

report in the Rules Docket that

summarizes each FAA contact with the

public that concerns the substantive

parts of the proposed AD.

If you want us to acknowledge the

receipt of your comments, you must

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard. On the postcard, write

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2000–CE–29–

AD.’’ We will date stamp and mail the

postcard back to you.

Discussion

What Events Have Caused This

Proposed AD?

The FAA has received reports of six

instances where the recording quality of

37312 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) system

in Raytheon Beech Models 1900, 1900C,

and 1900D airplanes was so poor that

the information was practically

unrecoverable.

What Are the Consequences if the

Condition Is not Corrected?

Substandard quality cockpit voice

recordings could affect air safety if

important information that the CVR

provides is not available after an

accident. This information helps

determine the probable cause of an

accident and aids in developing

necessary corrective action or design

changes to prevent future accidents.

Relevant Service Information

Is There Service Information That

Applies to This Subject?

Raytheon has issued Recommended

Service Bulletin SB 23–3094, Issued:

November, 1999.

What Are the Provisions of This Service

Bulletin?

The service bulletin includes

procedures for:

1. Replacing the DB Systems 437 and

437–001 audio amplifiers with 437–003

configuration amplifiers; and

2. Incorporating Kit 114–3032–1 and

modifying the electrical wiring to assure

that the audio amplifiers remain

connected to the pilot’s and copilot’s

microphones during transmissions.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What Has FAA Decided?

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

we have determined that:

—The unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on other Raytheon Beech Models

1900, 1900C, and 1900D airplanes of

the same type design;

—The actions specified in the

previously-referenced service

information should be accomplished

on the affected airplanes; and

—AD action should be taken in order to

correct this unsafe condition.

What Does This Proposed AD Require?

This proposed AD requires you to

accomplish the actions in Raytheon

Recommended Service Bulletin SB 23–

3094, Issued: November, 1999.

Compliance Time of the Proposed AD

What Is the Compliance Time of the

Proposed AD?

The compliance time of the proposed

AD is ‘‘within 12 months after the

effective date of this AD.’’

Why Is the Proposed Compliance in

Calendar Time Instead of Hours Timein-Service (TIS)?

The unsafe condition defined in this

document is not a result of the number

of times the airplane is operated, rather

is a result of the present configuration

of the CVR system. The chance of this

situation occurring is the same for an

airplane with 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS) as it is for an airplane with 1,000

hours TIS. For this reason, FAA has

determined that a compliance based on

calendar time should be utilized in the

proposed AD in order to assure that the

unsafe condition is addressed on all

airplanes in a reasonable time period.

Cost Impact

What Is the Cost Impact of the Proposed

AD on Owners/Operators of the Affected

Airplanes?

The following chart provides

estimates of the cost this proposed AD

would impose upon the public:

Action

Number of

airplanes

affected

Labor costs Parts cost Cost impact

Replacement/Incorporation of Modification Kit.119 8 workhours at $60 per hour=$480

per airplane.

$1,728 $262,752, or $2,208 per airplane.

Audio Amplifier Modification and

Electrical Wiring Changes.

377 8 workhours at $60 per hour=$480

per airplane.

679 $463,943, or $1,159 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposed rule

would 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) 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 has been placed 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, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations 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. FAA amends Section 39.13 by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Raytheon Aircraft Company (Type

Certificate No. A24CE formerly held by

the Beech Aircraft Corporation): Docket

No. 2000–CE–29–AD

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

The following airplane models and serial

numbers that are certificated in any category:

Models Serial numbers

1900 and

1900C.

All serial number airplanes

with the applicable

Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) Kit No. 114–

3020 variation (–1, –3, –7,

or –9) incorporated.

1900 and

1900C.

All serial number airplanes

with RAC Kit No. 114–

3032–1 incorporated.

1900 and

1900C.

All serial number airplanes

with RAC Kit No. 114–

3008–1 incorporated.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37313

Models Serial numbers

1900 and

1900C.

All serial number airplanes

where RAC installed the

cockpit voice recorder

(CVR).

1900D ............ UE–1 through UE–376.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes on the U.S. Register must

comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified in this document are

intended to correct substandard quality

cockpit voice recordings caused by the

configuration of the present CVR system,

which could affect air safety if important

information that the CVR provides is not

available after an accident. This information

helps determine the probable cause of an

accident and aids in developing necessary

corrective action or design changes to

prevent future accidents.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Action Compliance time Procedures

Accomplish the CVR system modifications specified in

Raytheon Recommended Service Bulletin SB 23–

3094, Issued: November 1999..

Within 12 months after the

effective date of this AD..

Do the modifications in accordance with procedures in

the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of

Raytheon Recommended Service Bulletin SB 23–

3094, Issued: November, 1999.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if you have not eliminated the

unsafe condition, specific actions you

propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? You can contact Mr. Harvey

Nero, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road,

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone: (316) 946–4137; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

the Raytheon Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box

85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. You may

examine these documents at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 6,

2000.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14942 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–p

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 92–NM–206–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream

Model G–IV Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that proposed a new airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Gulfstream Model G–IV series airplanes.

That action would have required

inspection of the data plate on the

bottom of the hydraulic brake control

module (HBCM) to verify the part and

serial numbers, and replacement of the

HBCM, if necessary. Since the issuance

of the NPRM, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has received new

data indicating that the proposed

actions have been accomplished on all

affected airplanes; therefore, the

previously identified unsafe condition

no longer exists. Accordingly, the

proposed rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil

Barryman, Aerospace Engineer, Systems

and Flight Test Branch, ACE–116A,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30349; telephone (770) 703–6098; fax

(770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

add a new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Gulfstream Model

G–IV series airplanes, was published in

the Federal Register as a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April

9, 1993 (58 FR 18347). The proposed

rule would have required inspection of

the data plate on the bottom of the

hydraulic brake control module (HBCM)

to verify the part and serial numbers,

and replacement of the HBCM, if

necessary. That action was prompted by

a landing incident that involved a

malfunction of the braking system. The

proposed actions were intended to

prevent a malfunction of the braking

system, which could lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane on the

ground.

Actions that Occurred Since the NPRM

Was Issued

Since the issuance of that NPRM,

Gulfstream has provided evidence to the

FAA that the actions proposed in the

NPRM have been accomplished on all

affected airplanes (Evidence was

provided to the FAA in Gulfstream’s

letter of May 30, 2000, which is filed in

the Rules Docket.)

FAA’s Conclusions

Upon further consideration, the FAA

has determined that, based on this

evidence, the previously identified

unsafe condition no longer exists with

regard to the Gulfstream Model G–IV

series airplanes. Accordingly, the

proposed rule is hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawal of this notice of proposed

rulemaking constitutes only such action,

and does not preclude the agency from

issuing another notice in the future, nor

does it commit the agency to any course

of action in the future.