8646 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Note 2: Where there are differences

between the service bulletin and the AD, the

AD prevails.

Note 3: The words ‘‘repair’’ and ‘‘modify/

modification’’ in this AD and the referenced

service bulletin are used interchangeably.

Note 4: This AD will affect Principal

Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.023 of the

DC–9 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID).

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 41,000 total

landings, or within 3,000 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a one-time visual inspection to

determine if the corners of the upper cargo

doorjamb have been modified prior to the

effective date of this AD.

(b) If the visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the

corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have not

been modified, prior to further flight, perform

an x-ray inspection to detect cracks of the

fuselage skin and doubler at all corners of the

upper cargo doorjamb, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–276, dated September 30, 1996.

(1) If no crack is detected during the x-ray

inspection required by this paragraph,

accomplish the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–53–276, dated September 30,

1996.

(i) Option 1. Repeat the x-ray inspection

required by paragraph (b) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000

landings; or

(ii) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify

the corner skin of the upper cargo doorjamb,

in accordance with the service bulletin. Prior

to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after

accomplishment of the modification, perform

an eddy current inspection to detect cracks

on the skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(A) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during the eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(B) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

(2) If any crack is found during any x-ray

inspection required by this paragraph and the

crack is 2 inches or less in length: Prior to

further flight, modify/repair it in accordance

with the service bulletin. Prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings after

accomplishment of the modification, perform

an eddy current inspection to detect cracks

on the skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected during the eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected during any eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(3) If any crack is found during any x-ray

inspection required by this paragraph and the

crack is greater than 2 inches in length: Prior

to further flight, modification it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(c) If the visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the

corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have

been modified previously: Prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings after

accomplishment of that modification, or

within 3,000 landings after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform

an eddy current inspection to detect cracks

on the skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–53–276, dated September 30,

1996.

(1) If no crack is detected during the eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(2) If any crack is detected during any eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(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, 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 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

20, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4714 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–196–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Model DH 125–1A and –3A 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 Raytheon Model DH 125–1A and

–3A series airplanes. This proposal

would require repetitive eddy current

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the main entry door/frame pressing, and

repair, if necessary. This proposal is

prompted by reports of fatigue cracking

of the main entry door/frame pressing

due to cyclic loading of the door frame.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to detect and correct

such fatigue cracking, which could lead

to the loss of structural integrity of the

main entry door, and, consequently,

result in decompression of the cabin.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

196–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

Raytheon Aircraft Company,

Commercial Service Department, 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 the FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

Small Airplane Directorate, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Engler, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

Small Airplane Directorate, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone (316) 946–4122; fax (316)

946–4407.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8647

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 96–NM–196–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–196–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received several reports

of fatigue cracking of the main entry

door/frame pressing of Raytheon Model

DH 125–1A and –3A series airplanes.

Investigation revealed that cyclic

loading of the door frame caused the

fatigue cracking. Such fatigue cracking,

if not detected and corrected in a timely

manner, could cause the loss of

structural integrity of the main entry

door, and lead to decompression of the

cabin.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Raytheon Aircraft Service Bulletin

SB.52–48, dated June 19, 1996, which

describes procedures for eddy current

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the main entry door/frame pressing. The

service bulletin also describes

procedures for repair, if necessary.

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 eddy current

inspections to detect and correct fatigue

cracking of the main entry door/frame

pressing. The actions would be required

to be accomplished in accordance with

the service bulletin described

previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 143

Raytheon Model DH 125 series airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 56

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

inspections, 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 $3,360, or $60 per

airplane, per inspection.

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.

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly

Beech, Raytheon Corporate Jets, British

Aerospace, Hawker Siddeley, et al.):

Docket 96–NM–196–AD.

Applicability: Model DH 125–1A and –3A

series airplanes; equipped with a main entry

door having part numbers 25FC3559A,

25FC3559A/B, or 25FC3559A/C; and on

which Raytheon Modification 251429 has not

been accomplished; 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 (b) 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 detect and correct fatigue cracking of

the main entry door frame pressing area,

which could result in loss of structural

integrity of the door and consequent

decompression of the cabin, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within the next 150 landings or 90 days

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs earlier, perform an eddy current

inspection to detect fatigue cracking of the

main entry door/frame pressing, in

accordance with Raytheon Aircraft Service

Bulletin SB.52–48, dated June 19, 1996.

(1) If no cracking is detected during the

inspection, repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours.

(2) If any cracking is detected during the

inspection, prior to further flight, repair the

cracking in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(b) 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.
8648 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(c) 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 February

20, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4716 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–210–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi

Model MU–300 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

Mitsubishi Model MU–300 airplanes.

This proposal would require revising

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

provide pilots with certain operating

procedures during icing conditions, and

to limit the maximum flaps position for

flight in icing conditions or landing

after an icing encounter. The proposal

also would require installing an ice

detector, and accomplishing a

corresponding AFM revision to address

its operation. For certain airplanes, the

proposal would require converting the

airplane configuration or modifying the

warning horn system of the landing

gear; and revising the AFM to specify

flaps 10 degrees as a normal landing

flap configuration. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent uncommanded nose-down pitch

at certain flap settings during icing

conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

210–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

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America,

Inc., 15303 Dallas Parkway, Suite 685,

LB–77, Dallas, Texas 75248. 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: Tina

L. Miller, Aerospace Engineer, Flight

Test Branch, ACE–117W, FAA, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, Small

Airplane Directorate, 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone (316) 946–4168; fax (316)

946–4407.

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 96–NM–210–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–210–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On December 5, 1994, the FAA issued

AD 94–25–10, amendment 39–9094 (59

FR 64112, December 13, 1994), that is

applicable to all Raytheon (Beech)

Model 400, 400A, 400T, and MU–300–

10 airplanes, and all Mitsubishi Model

MU–300 airplanes, to require a revision

to the FAA-approved Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to provide pilots with

special operating procedures during

icing conditions. That AD was

prompted by results of icing tests,

which demonstrated that ice

accumulations on the horizontal

stabilizer may cause the airplane to

pitch down at certain flaps settings. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent uncommanded nose-down pitch

at certain flap settings during icing

conditions.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 94–25–10,

the FAA reviewed and approved

Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007 (including Attachment 1),

dated January 12, 1996. The service

bulletin describes procedures for

installing a Rosemount ice detector in

accordance with Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) ST00383WI.

For Diamond I airplanes, Attachment

1 of the service bulletin describes

procedures for modifying the warning

horn system of the landing gear. That

action involves modifying the center

pedestal and the wiring of the warning

horn, installing a switch panel assembly

on the center pedestal, and performing

a functional test of the warning horn

system of the landing gear.

As an alternative to this modification,

the service bulletin specifies that

Diamond I airplanes may be converted

to the Diamond IA airplane

configuration by accomplishing

Mitsubishi MU–300 Diamond Service

Recommendation SR–001, Revision 2,

dated June 1, 1984. That action involves

upgrading the airplane to conform to an

improved performance configuration,

and includes modifications of the air

conditioning system, the pitch trim

indicator, the warning horn of the

landing gear, and the engine indicating

system.

Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007 also references the following

documents as the additional sources of

service information for accomplishment

of certain other procedures:

1. Airplane Flight Manual Supplement

M300–1003, dated December 6, 1995, which

revises the Introduction, Operating

Limitations, Emergency Procedures,

Abnormal Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the AFM to address the operation

of the ice detector system.

2. Diamond I Flight Manual, Revision 29,

dated January 5, 1996, which revises the