8650 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD.: Docket

96–NM–210–AD.

Applicability: All Model MU–300 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 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 uncommanded nose-down

pitch at certain flap settings during icing

conditions, accomplish the following:

(a) For all airplanes: Within 20 days after

December 28, 1994 (the effective date of AD

94–25–10, amendment 39–9094), revise the

Limitations Section and Normal Procedures

Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to include the following

statement. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.

‘‘Icing Conditions

If icing conditions are encountered during

flight, no greater than 10 degrees flaps may

be utilized for landing unless the following

conditions are met:

1. The icing conditions were encountered

for less than 10 minutes, and the Ram Air

Temperature (RAT) during such encounter

was warmer than –8 degrees C. or

2. A RAT of +5 degrees C or warmer is

observed during approach and landing.

If either of the above two conditions are

met, 30 degrees flaps may be utilized for

landing.

Otherwise:

Flaps (landing flaps setting)—10 degrees

Land Select (LAND SEL) Switch—Flaps 10

degrees

Use landing data for 10 degrees flaps from

Appendix 1 of this AD.

Use landing data for 10 degrees flaps from

Section 6, Performance.

(b) For Diamond I airplanes, as identified

in Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin No.

30–007, dated January 12, 1996: Within 2

years after the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this AD:

(1) Install an ice detector in accordance

with Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007, dated January 12, 1996.

(2) Revise the Introduction, Operating

Limitations, Emergency Procedures,

Abnormal Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the FAA-approved AFM to

address the operation of the ice detector

system. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of Airplane Flight Manual

Supplement M300–1003, dated December 6,

1995, in the AFM.

(3) Accomplish either paragraph (b)(3)(i) or

(b)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Convert the airplane from the Diamond

I configuration to the Diamond IA

configuration in accordance with Mitsubishi

MU–300 Diamond Service Recommendation

SR 71–001, Revision 2, dated June 1, 1984;

and accomplish the AFM revision required

by paragraph (c)(3) of this AD, or

(ii) Modify the warning horn system of the

landing gear in accordance with Attachment

1 of Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin No.

30–007, dated January 12, 1996.

(4) Revise the Operating Limitations,

Emergency Procedures, Abnormal

Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the AFM to limit the maximum

flap position to flaps 10 degrees for flight in

icing conditions or landing after an icing

encounter, to allow landing flaps of 30

degrees if the icing encounter meets certain

criteria, and to specify flaps 10 degrees as a

normal landing flap configuration. This may

be accomplished by inserting a copy of

Diamond I Flight Manual, Revision 29, dated

January 5, 1996, in the AFM.

(c) For Diamond IA airplanes: Within 2

years after the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

(1) Install an ice detector in accordance

with Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007, dated January 12, 1996.

(2) Revise the Introduction, Operating

Limitations, Emergency Procedures,

Abnormal Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the FAA-approved AFM to

address the operation of the ice detector

system. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of Airplane Flight Manual

Supplement M300–1003, dated December 6,

1995, in the AFM.

(3) Revise the Operating Limitations,

Emergency Procedures, Abnormal

Procedures, Normal Procedures, and

Performance Sections of the AFM to limit the

maximum flap position to flaps 10 degrees

for flight in icing conditions or landing after

an icing encounter, and to allow landing

flaps of 30 degrees if the icing encounter

meets certain criteria. This may be

accomplished by inserting a copy of

Mitsubishi MU–300 Diamond IA Airplane

Flight Manual, Revision 9, dated January 5,

1996, in the AFM.

(d) Accomplishment of the requirements of

paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD, as applicable,

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of AD 94–25–10, amendment

39–9094 [and paragraph (a) of this AD.]

Following accomplishment of paragraph (b)

or (c) of this AD, as applicable, the AFM

revision required by paragraph (a) of this AD

may be removed from the AFM.

(e) 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.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

20, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4718 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–209–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

(Beech) Model 400, 400A, 400T, and

MU–300–10 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 all

Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A,

400T, and MU–300–10 airplanes, and

Mitsubishi Model MU–300 airplanes,

that currently requires a revision to the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

provide pilots with special operating

procedures during icing conditions.

This proposal would require

modification of the horizontal stabilizer

ice protection system. This proposal

also would remove Model MU–300

airplanes from the applicability of that

AD. This proposal is prompted by the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8651

development of a modification that will

positively address the unsafe condition.

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–

209–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, Manager

Service Engineering, Hawker Customer

Support 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 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, Small

Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, 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–209–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–209–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),

applicable to all Raytheon 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 action was prompted

by the 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 that AD, the

FAA has reviewed and approved

Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2600,

dated November 1995. The service

bulletin describes procedures for

modification of the horizontal stabilizer

ice protection system on Model 400,

400A, and MU–300–10 airplanes. The

modification involves replacing the

existing ice protection system with an

improved system and changing the

horizontal stabilizer icing controls and

annunciation. Accomplishment of this

modification will improve the ice

protection capabilities of the horizontal

stabilizer.

That Beechcraft service bulletin does

not address Model 400T airplanes, since

the modification described in it has not

been tested or approved for those

airplanes. Nevertheless, the FAA has

determined that modification of the

horizontal stabilizer ice protection

system on Model 400T airplanes must

be accomplished in order to address the

unsafe condition and ensure the

continued operational safety of those

airplanes.

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 94–25–10 to continue to

require revising the Limitations and

Normal Procedures Sections of the AFM

to provide pilots with special operating

procedures during icing conditions. The

proposed AD also would require

modification of the horizontal stabilizer

ice protection system. The modification

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the service bulletin

described previously (if applicable), or

in accordance with a method approved

by the FAA. Accomplishment of the

modification constitutes terminating

action for the AFM revision required

currently by AD 94–25–10.

Additionally, the proposed AD would

remove Model MU–300 airplanes from

the applicability of the existing AD. The

FAA is considering issuing separate

rulemaking action to require, among

other things, certain AFM revisions and

installation of an ice detector on those

airplanes.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 237

Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A,

400T, and MU–300–10 airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 39 Model 400

and MU–300–10 airplanes, 67 Model

400A airplanes, and 80 Model 400T

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 94–25–10 (AFM

revision) take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

on U.S. operators of the actions

currently required is estimated to be

$11,160, or $60 per airplane.

The modification that is proposed in

this AD would take approximately 320

work hours per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts would cost

between $37,000 and $45,000 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact on the proposed requirements of

this AD U.S. operators of those airplanes

is estimated to be between $10,453,200

and $11,941,200, or between $56,200

and 64,200 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
8652 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 39–9094 (59 FR

64112, December 13, 1994), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly

Beech): Docket 96–NM–209–AD.

Supersedes AD 94–25–10, Amendment

39–9094.

Applicability: All Model 400, 400T, and

MU–300–10 airplanes; and Model 400A

airplanes having serial numbers RK–1

through RK–107 inclusive; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (c) 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 uncommanded nose-down

pitch at certain flap settings during icing

conditions, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 20 days after December 28, 1994

(the effective date of AD 94–25–10,

amendment 39–9094), revise the Limitations

Section and Normal Procedures Section of

the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to include the following text. This

may be accomplished by inserting a copy of

this AD in the AFM.

‘‘Icing Conditions

If icing conditions are encountered during

flight, no greater than 10 degrees flaps may

be utilized for landing unless the following

conditions are met:

1. The icing conditions were encountered

for less than 10 minutes, and the Ram Air

Temperature (RAT) during such encounter

was warmer than ¥8 degrees C.

Or

2. A RAT of +5 degrees C or warmer is

observed during approach and landing.

If either of the above two conditions are

met, 30 degrees flaps may be utilized for

landing.

Otherwise:

Flaps (landing flaps setting)—10 degrees

Land Select (LAND SEL) Switch—Flaps 10

degrees

Use landing data for 10 degrees flaps from

Appendix 1 of this AD.

(b) Within 2 years after the effective date

of this AD, modify the horizontal stabilizer

ice protection system in accordance with

paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, as

applicable. Accomplishment of this

modification constitutes terminating action

for the AFM revision required by paragraph

(a) of this AD. Following such

accomplishment, that AFM revision may be

removed from the AFM.

(1) For Model 400, 400A, and MU–300–10

airplanes: Accomplish the modification in

accordance with Beechcraft Service Bulletin

No. 2600, dated November 1995.

(2) For Model 400T airplanes: Accomplish

the modification in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate.

(c) 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

ACO. 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.

(d) 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.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8653

Appendix 1
8654 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8655
8656 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8657
8658 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8659

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

20, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4719 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1700

Household Products Containing

Petroleum Distillates and Other

Hydrocarbons; Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking; Request for

Comments and Information

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)

has reason to believe that child-resistant

packaging may be needed to protect

children from serious illness or injury

from products that contain either

petroleum distillates or other

hydrocarbons or combinations of these

ingredients. This advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) initiates

a rulemaking proceeding under the

Poison Prevention Packaging Act

(‘‘PPPA’’). Existing PPPA standards

require child-resistant packaging for

some products that contain petroleum

distillates or other hydrocarbons. The

Commission desires information on a

variety of issues concerning products

containing petroleum distillates or other

hydrocarbons as it considers the

possibility of requiring child-resistant

packaging for additional consumer

products that contain these substances.

The Commission solicits written

comments from interested persons

concerning the risks of injury or illness

associated with household products

containing petroleum distillates and

other hydrocarbons, the regulatory

alternatives discussed in this notice,

other possible means to address these

risks, and the economic impacts of the

various regulatory alternatives.

DATES: Written comments and

submissions in response to this notice

must be received by the Commission by

May 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed, preferably in five copies, to the

Office of the Secretary, Consumer

Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207–0001, or

delivered to the Office of the Secretary,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway,

Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone

(301) 504–0800. Comments should be

captioned ‘‘ANPR for Petroleum

Distillates.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Barone, Directorate for

Epidemiology and Health Sciences,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301)

504–0477, ext. 1196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

1. Introduction. Petroleum distillates

are a group of hydrocarbon-based

chemicals that are refined from crude

oil. Petroleum distillates include

gasoline, naphtha, mineral spirits,

kerosene, paraffin wax, and tar. They

are the primary ingredient in many

consumer products, including certain

furniture polishes, paint solvents,

adhesives, and automotive chemicals.

As explained below, the presence of

such petroleum distillates in products

may contribute to the products’ toxicity.

A number of consumer products

contain hydrocarbons that are not

petroleum distillates, but that can cause

similar toxic effects. These other

hydrocarbons include substances such

as benzene, toluene, xylene, pine oil,

turpentine, and limonene.