This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

44096

Vol. 62, No. 160

Tuesday, August 19, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–92–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Twin

Commander Aircraft Corporation 500,

600, and 700 Series 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 Twin

Commander Aircraft Corporation 500,

600, and 700 series airplanes. The

proposed action would require

installing access holes in both wing

leading edges and repetitively

inspecting the forward attach brackets

and straps for cracks. Reports of cracks

in the wing to fuselage attachment

brackets and straps, wing station (WS)

24, and fuselage frames prompted the

proposed action. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

detect cracks at the wing to fuselage

attach points, which, if not detected and

corrected, could cause structural failure

and loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–92–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

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

Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation,

P.O. Box 3369, Arlington, Washington,

98223; telephone (360) 435–9797;

facsimile (360) 435–1112. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Morfitt, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Ave. S.W., Renton,

Washington, 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2595; facsimile (425) 227–

1181.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 95–CE–92–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, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 95–CE–92–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

There have been 14 reports of

cracking at the wing leading edge spar

and fuselage attach point in recent years

on certain Twin Commander 500, 600,

and 700 series airplanes. Two

Australian airplanes out of the 14 were

reported to have extensive cracking in

the wing leading edge spar, the wing

station (W.S.) 24 rib, the fuselage station

(F.S.) 100 frame, and in the attachment

brackets between the kick fitting and the

leading edge spar. Further investigation

found 12 other Twin Commander

airplanes with similar cracking. In

addition, Twin Commander Models

690D and 695A airplanes were found to

have adjacent detail cracking while

undergoing full scale fatigue tests. The

Twin Commander Models 690D and

695A airplanes are currently inspected

in the wing structure under

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95–12–23

which mandates the procedures and

actions in Twin Commander Service

Bulletin No. 213, dated July 24, 1994.

This proposed action would cover

additional series airplanes as well as

require repetitively inspecting and

modifying the wing leading edge by

installing access holes for thorough

access to the fatigued areas.

Relevant Service Information

Twin Commander has issued Service

Bulletin (SB) No. 223, dated October 24,

1996 as amended by Revision Notice

No. 1, dated May 8, 1997, which

specifies installing access holes in both

wing leading edges, inspecting for

cracks, and replacing or repairing any

cracked part and continuing to

repetitively inspect.

The FAA’s Determination

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to detect cracks at the

wing to fuselage attach points, which, if

not detected and corrected, could cause

structural failure and loss of control of

the airplane.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Twin Commander 500,

600, and 700 series airplanes of the

same type design, the proposed AD

would require the following actions:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44097

A B C

Part I ............................... Installing access holes in left and

right wing leading edges and inspecting forward attach brackets

and straps for cracks..

If cracked, prior to further flight, replacing the brackets and straps or

repairing the part with an approved

repair scheme. Then accomplish

PART II of this AD.

If no cracks, repeat the inspection at

regular intervals until cracks are

found, then accomplish PART II.

Part II .............................. Inspecting for cracks on both wing

leading edge close-outs, upper &

lower return flange radius, fuselage

frame where tee bracket attaches,

inboard side of attach bracket and

frame tee bracket.

If cracked, prior to further flight, replacing any cracked part or repairing the part with an approved repair scheme.After repairing or replacing the damaged part, continuing to inspect at

regular intervals.

Part III ............................. Inspecting fuselage station (f.s.) 100

for cracks.

If cracked, prior to further flight, repairing with an approved repair

scheme, and continuing to inspect

at regular intervals.

If no cracks, repeating the inspection

at regular intervals until cracks are

found, then accomplishing PART III

B of this AD.

Note: Models 520 and 560 airplanes only

are excluded from installing the wing leading

edge access holes and inspection proposed in

PART I of the above table.

Note: Models 690C and 695 airplanes are

excluded from the proposed inspection in

PART III in the above table.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 1,887

airplanes in the U.S. registry would be

affected by the proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 82 workhours

for PART I; 100 workhours for PART II

(if required); and 7 workhours for PART

III per airplane to accomplish the

proposed action. The average labor rate

is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $410 for PART I and

approximately $450 for PART II (if

required) per airplane. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact for PART

I would be $5,330 per airplane, PART II

(if required) would be $6,450 per

airplane, and PART III would be $420

per airplane. The U.S. fleet cost is

estimated to be $11,127,650, or $5,950

per airplane if no damage is found; and

$23,021,400 for the U.S. fleet, or

$12,200 per airplane if damage is found.

For purposes of estimating the cost of

the proposed AD, the FAA is presuming

that none of the owners/operators of the

affected airplanes have accomplished

any of the actions on any of the affected

airplanes. In addition, the cost impact

does not take into consideration the

costs of the repetitive inspections. The

FAA has no way of determining the

number of repetitive inspections that

may be incurred over the life of the

airplane.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Economic

Analysis

Because the estimated cost for the

proposed inspection and possible

repairs are expensive, the FAA

conducted a Cost Analysis and Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and Analysis for the proposed AD.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

assure that small entities are not

unnecessarily and disproportionately

burdened by Government regulations.

The RFA requires agencies to review

rules that may have a ‘‘significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities,’’ and, in cases

where they would, to conduct a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in which

alternative actions are considered.

FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory

Flexibility Criteria and Guidance,

defines ‘‘significant economic impact’’

as an annualized net compliance cost,

adjusted for inflation, which is greater

than a threshold cost level for defined

entity types. A ‘‘substantial number’’ is

defined as a number that is at least

eleven and that is more than one-third

of the small entities subject to a

proposed rule, or any number of small

entities subject to a rule which is

substantial in the judgment of the

rulemaking official. Small entities are

defined as small businesses, small notfor-profit organizations which are

independently owned and operated, or

airports operated by small governmental

jurisdictions.

With limited information available to

airplane specific costs, a range of per

airplane costs can be estimated by

constructing hypothetical low- and

high-cost scenarios. These scenarios are

based on three general presumptions:

first, that these airplanes have

accumulated 6,000 hours TIS, and will

be subject to the proposed AD within

the next 100 hours TIS; second, that all

of these airplanes are at the minimum

and maximum extremes of annual TIS

(200 or 300 hours), remaining operating

life (10 and 20 years), and the extent of

cracking (no cracking or cracking in the

inspected areas); and third, that these

airplanes are of the model types

incurring either the lowest or highest

costs.

The total low-cost scenario in 1997

dollars would be $5,570 ($4,805

discounted) per airplane over 10 years,

with $5,330 of the costs incurred in the

first year. The annualized cost (again

over 10 years) would be $641 per

airplane.

The total high-cost scenario in 1997

dollars would be $25,285 per airplane

($16,487 discounted) over 30 years, with

$15,865 of the costs incurred in the first

year. The annualized cost (again over 30

years) would be $1,556.

The proposed AD would affect

approximately 1,464 airplanes, of which

366 are owned by individuals, 38 are

owned by federal and state agencies,

and 847 are owned by 697 separate

entities. Of the 697 entities, 1 entity

owns 28 airplanes, 3 entities own

between 10 and 12 airplanes, 19

separate entities own between 3 and 9

airplanes, thirty-two entities own 2

airplanes, and 642 entities own 1

airplane. The FAA cannot determine the

size of all 697 owner entities, or the type

of business each entity is engaged in.

The FAA also cannot conclusively

determine the costs of this AD. For

illustration purposes, it was calculated

that the proposed AD would have

hypothetical annualized costs between

$641 (the low-cost scenario) and $1,556

(the high-cost scenario) per airplane.

Due to the uncertainties involved with

these calculations, as well as with the

ownership information, no

determinations can be made regarding

‘‘significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’

The FAA has considered three

alternatives to this proposed AD: (1)

take no federal action and rely on

voluntary compliance with the Twin

Commander Service Bulletin No. 223.

The FAA finds this alternative

unacceptable because of the

consequences that could result; (2)

mandate inspecting fewer parts, and at

longer intervals in the areas where the

wings attach to the fuselage. This
44098 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

alternative is unacceptable because less

stringent inspections could fail to locate

cracking in key parts of the airplane for

too long a period of time; (3) defer

Federal action pending review of

additional data to determine whether to

require the specified inspections. This

alternative is unacceptable because

evidence already exists of cracking in

the wing and fuselage at the attach

points which would be considered

structural failure.

Consequently, the FAA is unable to

conclusively make an economic impact

evaluation based on information

available.

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 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, could have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (a determination was not

able to be made). 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, 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

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation:

Docket No. 95–CE–92–AD.

Applicability: Models 500, 500A, 500B,

500S, 500U, 520, 560, 560A, 560E, 560F, 680,

680E, 680F, 680FL, 680FLP, 680FP, 680T,

680V, 680W, 681, 685, 690, 690A, 690B,

690C, 690D, 695, 695A, 695B and 720

airplanes (all serial numbers), 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 (f) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent cracks at the wing to fuselage

attach points, which, if not detected and

corrected, could cause structural failure and

loss of control of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) For all models except Models 520, 560,

690C and 695, accomplish the actions in the

following table in accordance with the

Compliance section and PART I, II, and III of

the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

sections of Twin Commander Aircraft

Corporation (Twin Commander) Service

Bulletin (SB) No. 223, dated October 24, 1996

as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated

May 8, 1997:

A B C

PART I ............................ Upon the accumulation of 6,000

hours total time-in-service (TIS) or

within the next 100 hours TIS,

whichever occurs later, install access holes in left and right wing

leading edges and inspect the forward attach brackets and straps for

cracks.

If cracked, prior to further flight, replace the brackets and straps or

repair the part by an approved repair scheme (see paragraph (b) of

this AD). Then, accomplish PART

II of this AD.

If no cracks are found, repeat inspection at 1,000 hour (hr.) intervals

until cracks are found, replace the

cracked part or repair by an approved repair scheme (see paragraph (b) of this AD), then accomplish PART II.

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART I of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART I of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART I of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

PART II ........................... Inspect for cracks at the wing leading

edge close-outs, upper & lower return flange radius, fuselage frame

where tee bracket attaches, inboard side of attach bracket and

frame tee bracket.

If cracked, prior to further flight, replace any cracked part or repair

the part with an approved repair

scheme (see paragraph (b) of this

AD). If no cracks are found, continue to repetitively inspect at

1,000 hour TIS intervals.

After repair or replacement is accomplished, continue to inspect at

6,000 hr. intervals.

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART II of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART II of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART II of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44099

A B C

For pressurized airplanes, at 6,000

hr. total TIS or within the next 100

hours TIS whichever occurs later,

inspect fuselage station (F.S.) 100

for cracks.

If cracked, prior to further flight, repair with an approved repair

scheme (see paragraph (b) of this

AD), and continue to inspect at

1,000 hr. intervals.

If no cracks, repeat inspection at

1,000 hr. intervals until cracks are

found, then accomplish PART III B

of this AD

PART III .......................... For non-pressurized airplanes, at

12,000 hr. total TIS or within the

next 100 hours TIS whichever occurs later, inspect F.S. 100 for

cracks..

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART III of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART III of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

(Accomplish in accordance with

PART III of Compliance Section in

Twin Commander SB 223, dated

Oct. 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May 8,

1997.)

(b) Obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme

from the manufacturer through the Manager

of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office at

the address specified in paragraph (f) of this

AD.

(c) For Twin Commander Models 520 and

560 airplanes, upon the accumulation of

6,000 hours total TIS or within the next 100

hours TIS whichever occurs later,

accomplish PART II of the table in paragraph

(a) of this AD. Accomplish PART III in

accordance with the compliance times in the

above table of paragraph (a). These models

are excluded from the wing leading edge

access hole installation in PART I of the table

in paragraph (a) of this AD.

(d) For Twin Commander Models 690C and

695 airplanes, accomplish PARTS I and II in

accordance with the compliance times in the

above table of paragraph (a). These Models

are excluded from PART III of the table in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(e) 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.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056. The request shall be forwarded

through an appropriate FAA Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office.

(g) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to Twin Commander

Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box 3369,

Arlington, Washington 98223; telephone

(360) 435–9797; facsimile (360) 435–1112; or

may examine this document at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August

12, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–21873 Filed 8–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 403

Deceptive Use of ‘‘Leakproof,’’

‘‘Guaranteed Leakproof,’’ Etc., as

Descriptive of Dry Cell Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘FTC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) announces the

commencement of a rulemaking

proceeding for the Trade Regulation

Rule on Deceptive Use of ‘‘Leakproof,’’

‘‘Guaranteed Leakproof,’’ Etc., as

Descriptive of Dry Cell Batteries (‘‘the

Dry Cell Battery Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’),

16 CFR Part 403. The proceeding will

address whether or not the Dry Cell

Battery Rule should be repealed. The

Commission invites interested parties to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on how the Rule has affected

consumers, businesses and others, and

on whether there currently is a need for

the Rule. This document includes a

description of the procedures to be

followed, an invitation to submit

written comments, a list of questions

and issues upon which the Commission

particularly desires comments, and

instructions for prospective witnesses

and other interested persons who desire

to participate in the proceeding.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before September 18,

1997. Notifications of interest in

testifying must be submitted on or

before September 18, 1997. If interested

parties request the opportunity to

present testimony, the Commission will

publish a document in the Federal

Register, stating the time and place at

which the hearings will be held and

describing the procedures that will be

followed in conducting the hearings. In

addition to submitting a request to

testify, interested parties who wish to

present testimony must submit, on or

before September 18, 1997, a written

comment or statement that describes the

issues on which the party wishes to

testify and the nature of the testimony

to be given.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to testify should be submitted

to Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, Sixth and

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580, (202) 326–2506. Comments

and requests to testify should be

identified as ‘‘16 CFR Part 403

Comment—Dry Cell Battery Rule’’ and

‘‘16 CFR Part 403 Request to Testify—

Dry Cell Battery Rule,’’ respectively. If

possible, submit comments both in

writing and on a personal computer

diskette in Word Perfect or other word

processing format (to assist in

processing, please identify the format

and version used). Written comments

should be submitted, when feasible and

not burdensome, in five copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neil Blickman, Attorney, Federal Trade

Commission, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, Division of Enforcement,

Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Pursuant to the Federal Trade

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C.

41–58, and the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551–59, 701–06,

by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking