Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7731

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:

Allied Signal Inc. and Rajay Inc.: Docket No.

96–ANE–24.

Applicability: AlliedSignal Inc. oil

scavenge pumps, Part Numbers (P/Ns)

101633–01 and –02 and Rajay oil scavenge

pumps, P/Ns 1025–1 or –2, installed on

Teledyne Continental Motors IO–470 and

TSIO–520 series, and Textron Lycoming O360, IO–360, and IO–540 series reciprocating

engines. These engines are installed on but

not limited to reciprocating engine powered

aircraft manufactured by Aerostar Aircraft

Corporation, Cessna, Curtiss-Wright

Corporation (Travel Air), Helio Enterprises,

Inc., The New Piper Aircraft Corporation,

Revo Inc. (Lake), and Twin Commander.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each oil scavenge pump 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 oil scavenge

pumps 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 (d) 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 oil scavenge pump snap ring

failure causing severe wear on the pump end

plate, which could result in loss of engine oil

and subsequent engine shutdown,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 25 hours time in service (TIS)

after the effective date of this AD, inspect oil

scavenge pumps in accordance with the

following instructions or Aerostar Aircraft

Corporation Service Bulletin (SB) No.

SB600–131, dated June 14, 1996.

(1) Remove the oil scavenge pump and

inspect for security of the snap ring

installation.

(2) Remove the snap ring and washer

between the snap ring and bearing, and

inspect the snap ring and washer for wear,

consisting of thinning or bevelling at the

inside diameter. If any wear visible to the

naked eye is detected, replace with a

serviceable snap ring and washer prior to

further flight.

(3) Inspect the shaft groove for round wear

on the spline side of the groove. If any wear

visible to the naked eye is detected, replace

with a serviceable shaft prior to further flight.

(4) If the snap ring is not in the shaft

groove, disassemble the entire scavenge

pump and inspect for internal damage prior

to further flight. If any internal damage is

found, replace the oil scavenge pump with a

serviceable oil scavenge pump prior to

further flight.

(b) Thereafter, at each 100-hour and annual

inspection, perform repetitive inspections,

and, if necessary, replace with serviceable

parts, in accordance with paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(c) Accomplishment of the procedures

described in Aerostar Aircraft Corporation

Service Bulletin No. SB600–131, dated June

14, 1996, constitutes an acceptable

alternative method of compliance for the

actions required by this AD.

(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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office. The request

should 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 airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office.

(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 aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

February 4, 1997.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4144 Filed 2–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–190–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Model DH 125–1A, –3A, and –400A

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Raytheon Model DH 125–1A, –3A, and

–400A series airplanes. This proposal

would require a one-time inspection to

detect scoring of the upper fuselage skin

around the periphery of the cockpit

canopy blister interface, and repair, if

necessary. This proposal is prompted by

reports indicating that scoring of the

upper fuselage skin had been detected

in that area. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to detect and

correct scoring of the upper fuselage

skin around the periphery of the cockpit

canopy blister interface, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the fuselage, and consequent cabin

depressurization.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

190–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 at the FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas.
7732 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Engler, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ACE–120W, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, 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

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–190–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–190–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports

indicating that scoring of the upper

fuselage skin around the periphery of

the cockpit canopy blister interface has

occurred on Raytheon Model DH 125–

1A, –3A, and –400A series airplanes.

Investigation revealed that the scoring

was due to the use of sharp instruments

to remove excess sealant during the

four-year inspection cycle of the

fuselage skin under the canopy blister.

Use of sharp instruments to remove

excess sealant is contrary to the

instructions contained in Chapter 20 of

the Airplane Maintenance Manual

(AMM). Scoring of the upper fuselage

skin around the periphery of the cockpit

canopy blister interface, if not corrected,

could result in reduced structural

integrity of the fuselage skin, and

consequent cabin depressurization.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Raytheon Service Bulletin SB.53–93,

dated May 16, 1996, which describes

procedures for a one-time detailed

visual inspection to detect scoring of the

upper fuselage skin around the

periphery of the cockpit canopy blister

interface. The service bulletin also

describes repair procedures for scoring

that is within the specified limits.

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 a one-time detailed visual

inspection to detect scoring of the upper

fuselage skin around the periphery of

the cockpit canopy blister interface, and

repair, if necessary. The visual

inspection and repair of scoring that is

within certain limits would be required

to be accomplished in accordance with

the service bulletin described

previously. Repair of scoring that is

outside certain limits would be required

to be accomplished in accordance with

a method approved by the FAA.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 200 Model

DH 125–1A, –3A, and –400A series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

115 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 4 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, 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

$27,600, or $240 per airplane.

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–190–AD.

Applicability: All Model DH 125–1A, –3A,

and –400 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

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 (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7733

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.

Note 2: Raytheon Model DH 125–1B, –3B,

and –400B series airplanes are similar in

design to the airplanes that are subject to the

requirements of this AD and, therefore, also

may be subject to the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. However, as of the

effective date of this AD, those models are

not type certificated for operation in the

United States. Airworthiness authorities of

countries in which the Model DH 125–1B,

–3B, and –400B series airplanes are approved

for operation should consider adopting

corrective action, applicable to those models,

that is similar to the corrective action

required by this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct scoring of the upper

fuselage skin around the periphery of the

cockpit canopy blister interface, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of the

fuselage skin, and consequent cabin

depressurization; accomplish the following:

(a) Within 90 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time detailed

visual inspection to detect scoring of the

upper fuselage skin around the periphery of

the cockpit canopy blister interface, in

accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin

SB.53–93, dated May 16, 1996.

(b) If no scoring is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, no further action is required by this AD.

(c) If any scoring is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, determine the

maximum location and details of each score,

including the edge distance and material

thickness, in accordance with Service

Bulletin SB.53–93, dated May 16, 1996.

(1) If any scoring is found that is within the

limits specified in the service bulletin, prior

to further flight, repair in accordance with

the service bulletin.

(2) If any scoring is found that is outside

the limits specified in the service bulletin,

prior to further flight, repair in accordance

with a method approved by the Manager,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate.

(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, 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita 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

13, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4197 Filed 2–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ACE–17]

Proposed Alteration of Class E

Airspace at Muscatine, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration [FAA], DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule, withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

which proposed to change the Class E

airspace area at Muscatine, IA. The

NPRM is being withdrawn due to the

delay in the installation of the Port City

Very High Frequency Omnidirectional

Range/Distance Measuring Equipment

(VOR/DME).

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

February 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Operations Branch,

ACE–530C, Federal Aviation

Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas

City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 426–

3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Proposed Rule

On December 20, 1995 (60 FR 65601),

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register to

change the Class E airspace at

Muscatine, IA. The delay in obtaining

the necessary equipment has resulted in

delaying the installation and

commissioning of the VOR/DME until

late 1997 or early 1998.

Conclusion

In consideration of the

aforementioned delay in installation

and commissioning of the Port City

VOR/DME, action is being taken to

withdraw the proposed amendment of

the Class E airspace area at Muscatine,

IA. If necessary, a new NPRM will be

prepared at a later date.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, Airspace

Docket No. 95–ACE–17, as published in

the Federal Register on December 20,

1995 (60 FR 65601), is hereby

withdrawn.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120;

E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959–1963

Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 27,

1997.

Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 97–3747 Filed 2–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–ASW–21]

Proposed Revision of Class E

Airspace; Silver City, NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise

the Class E airspace extending upward

from 700 feet above ground level (AGL)

at Silver City, NM. A new Global

Positioning System (GPS) Standard

Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)

to Runway (RWY) 26 at Silver CityGrant County Airport has made this

proposal necessary. The intended effect

of this proposal is to provide adequate

controlled airspace for aircraft executing

the GPS SIAP to RWY 26 at Silver City,

NM.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to Manager,

Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Southwest Region, Docket No. 96–

ASW–21, Forth Worth, TX 76193–0530.

The official docket may be examined in

the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Federal Aviation

Administration, Southwest Region, 2601

Meacham Boulevard, Forth Worth, TX,

between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. An informal docket may also

be examined during normal business

hours at the Operations Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Federal Aviation

Administration, Southwest Region, 1601

Meacham Boulevard, Forth Worth, TX.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Federal Aviation

Administration, Southwest Region,

Forth Worth, TX 76193–0530; telephone

(817) 222–5593.