Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 71239

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, approves your alternative.

Submit your request through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 2: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Doug Rudolph,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4059; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

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

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? Actions required

by this AD must be done in accordance with

British Aerospace Jetstream Alert Service

Bulletin 55–A–JA–990640, Issued: September

1, 1999. The Director of the Federal Register

approved this incorporation by reference

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You

can get copies from British Aerospace

Regional Aircraft, Prestwick International

Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland. You

can look at copies at the FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri, or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(i) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on January 12, 2001.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in British Aerospace Jetstream Alert Service

Bulletin 55–A–JA–990640, Issued: September

1, 1999. This service bulletin is classified as

mandatory by the United Kingdom Civil

Aviation Authority (CAA).

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

November 14, 2000.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29938 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–127–AD; Amendment

39–12026; AD 2000–24–19]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet

Model 35, 35A, 36, and 36A Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Learjet Model 35, 35A,

36, and 36A series airplanes, that

requires revision of the Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to add procedures for

donning the flightcrew oxygen masks

when the cabin altitude warning horn is

activated. This amendment is intended

to prevent incapacitation of the

flightcrew due to lack of oxygen and

consequent loss of control of the

airplane due to absence of AFM

procedures for donning the flightcrew

oxygen masks when the cabin altitude

warning horn is activated.

DATES: Effective January 4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Information pertaining to

this amendment may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben

Sorensen, Flight Test Pilot, Flight Test

and Program Management, ACE–117W,

FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification

Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone (316) 946–4165; fax

(316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all Learjet Model

35, 35A, 36, and 36A series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on June 8, 2000 (65 FR 36391). That

action proposed to require revision of

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

add procedures for donning the

flightcrew oxygen masks when the cabin

altitude warning horn is activated. That

proposal was intended to prevent

incapacitation of the flightcrew due to

lack of oxygen and consequent loss of

control of the airplane due to absence of

AFM procedures for donning the

flightcrew oxygen masks when the cabin

altitude warning horn is activated.

Since the Issuance of the Proposal

The FAA has determined that the

identified unsafe condition is

adequately addressed by Step 1

(donning the oxygen mask following a

cabin high altitude warning) of the AFM

revision under paragraph (a) of the

proposed AD. In line with that

determination, it is no longer necessary

to include Steps 2 through 12 of

paragraph (a). The FAA has revised

paragraph (a) of the final rule

accordingly.

Comments on the Proposal

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request To Withdraw the Proposal

One commenter states that it opposes

the adoption of the proposal, as well as

the FAA’s continued efforts to use

rulemaking to address ‘‘operational’’

concerns. The commenter contends that

airworthiness directives should only

address corrective actions that

specifically identify product flaws that

create an unsafe condition. In particular,

the commenter maintains that the

unsafe condition demands an

‘‘operational’’ as well as an educational

concern. The commenter further states

that its primary concern with the

proposal is that, in the accidents and

incidents reports where incapacitation

of the flightcrew was due to hypoxia,

the root design or mechanical flaw has

not been identified. The commenter

concludes that a pilot’s failure to don an

oxygen mask raises ‘‘operational’’

concerns that have nothing to do with

the specific problems concerning the

continued airworthiness of the product

in question. From these comments, the

FAA infers that the commenter requests

that the proposed AD be withdrawn.

The FAA does not concur that the

proposed AD should be withdrawn. The

purpose of an AD is to correct an

identified unsafe condition in products,

regardless of where the unsafe condition

is located or what it is caused by. The

current AFM does not contain

procedures to don oxygen masks when

the cabin altitude aural warning is

activated. The FAA considers that the

lack of such procedures constitutes an

unsafe condition and, as such, must be

corrected. In essence, the requirement to

revise the AFM to add procedures to

don oxygen masks when the cabin

altitude warning is activated serves to

71240 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

protect the flying public from the

consequences of the unsafe condition.

The AD also serves to protect the

manufacturer from the liability that

would be faced should the unsafe

condition not be corrected.

Request To Revise the Emergency

Procedures

One commenter requests that the

proposed emergency descent procedures

be revised to specify that the flightcrew

(1) don the oxygen mask; (2) level off

(stabilize) the aircraft; and (3) verify loss

of cabin pressure. The commenter

suggests that if loss of cabin pressure is

verified, the flightcrew should continue

with the remainder of the emergency

procedures. The commenter states that

the purpose of adding these steps would

be to ensure that the procedures, as

proposed, do not lead the flightcrew to

a possible overreaction. The commenter

concludes that the suggested additional

steps would provide clear direction for

the flightcrew when the cabin altitude

warning horn activates.

The FAA does not concur with the

request to add procedures specifying

that, immediately after donning the

oxygen masks, the flightcrew level off

the aircraft and verify loss of cabin

pressure. As explained previously, the

FAA has determined that, other than

donning the oxygen masks, it is

unnecessary to add further requirements

to the Emergency Procedures Section of

the AFM. The current FAA-approved

AFM appears to take a conservative

approach to cabin high altitude

emergency procedures and specifies that

the flightcrew perform an emergency

descent. Furthermore, the FAA has not

identified any unsafe conditions

associated with those specific AFM

procedures. The FAA has, however,

forwarded the commenter’s suggestions

to the manufacturer for its

consideration.

Request To Revise the Title of the

Emergency Procedures

One commenter, the manufacturer,

requests that the title of the emergency

procedures be revised to also address

the condition where the flightcrew

notices a high cabin altitude before the

warning horn sounds. The commenter

suggests that the following words be

added to the title: ‘‘* * * or Cabin

Altitude Exceeds 10,000 feet.’’

The FAA finds that the suggested

additional words will clarify and

specify emergency procedures for a

possible situation, and will encourage

proactive flightcrew action. Therefore,

the FAA concurs with the commenter’s

request, and has revised paragraph (a) of

the AD accordingly.

Request To Add Certain Notes

One commenter, the manufacturer,

also requests that two new notes be

added to clarify the proposed

requirements of paragraph (a) after Step

10 and Step 12.

The FAA does not concur. Since all

steps except Step 1 of paragraph (a) of

the proposal have been removed (as

explained previously) from the

proposed AD, it is unnecessary to

provide further clarification of the other

steps.

Request To Redesign the Oxygen

System

Two commenters request that the

proposal include a requirement that the

oxygen bottle in the cockpit be

redesigned to show oxygen bottle

pressure and not system pressure.

Additionally, one of those commenters

requests that the oxygen bottle clearly

indicate that the system is ‘‘on’’ during

preflight.

The FAA does not concur that this AD

should require redesign of the oxygen

bottle system. The FAA finds that a

properly conducted preflight of the

oxygen masks will establish and verify

the correct gauge that reads bottle

pressure, and ensure that the oxygen

bottle valve is properly positioned.

Additionally, the required flow check

will not work if the oxygen bottle is

turned off since all oxygen would have

been released from the system. The

actions required in this AD are intended

to sufficiently address the stated unsafe

condition.

Since redesign of the oxygen bottle

system was not specified in the

proposal, to require such redesign in

this AD would be to mandate

requirements without benefit of

opportunity for public comment. Since

the FAA has received no reports of any

unsafe conditions associated with the

design of the indicating system or bottle

pressure system, it is not considering

further rulemaking at this time.

However, the FAA has forwarded this

suggestion to the manufacturer for its

consideration.

Request To Add Additional Models to

the Applicability

One commenter requests that the

applicability be revised to include

Learjet Model 23, early Model 24, and

Model 25 series airplanes. The

commenter states that the oxygen and

pressurization systems on these

airplanes are similar to the airplane

models cited in the applicability of the

proposed AD.

The FAA does not concur that

additional airplane models should be

added to the applicability of this AD.

The FAA acknowledges that the oxygen

and pressurization systems on those

airplanes are similar to the Learjet

Model 35 and 36 series airplanes.

However, if those airplane models were

added to the applicability of this AD,

additional time for opportunity to

comment would be required. The FAA

finds that to delay this action would be

inappropriate in light of the identified

unsafe condition. If information is

received that points to an unsafe

condition on the Learjet Model 23,

Model 24, or Model 25, the FAA will

consider further rulemaking. The FAA

will forward the commenter’s

suggestion to the airplane manufacturer.

Request To Identify Flight Conditions

Where Emergency Descent Is

Unnecessary

One commenter requests that the FAA

identify all flight conditions in which

an emergency descent is not required

subsequent to donning oxygen masks,

and clearly present the appropriate

instructions in the final rule. The

commenter notes that the proposed AD

specifies that, regardless of the existing

flight conditions, the flightcrew perform

an emergency descent upon activation

of the cabin altitude warning. The

commenter points out that it is possible

for the cabin altitude warning horn to

activate during flight conditions that

would not require an emergency descent

and landing.

The FAA does not concur that

identification of all flight conditions in

which an emergency descent is not

required is necessary. The FAA

considers that the manufacturer has

taken a prudent and conservative

approach in establishing the current

emergency descent procedures, which

specify emergency descent is necessary

regardless of flight conditions. However,

for the reasons explained previously,

other than donning the oxygen masks,

the FAA has removed the requirement

to complete additional emergency

descent procedures from this final rule.

Therefore, no change to the final rule is

necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 71241

Cost Impact

There are approximately 739 Learjet

Model 35, 35A, 36, and 36A series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

500 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the required actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $30,000, or $60 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national Government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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:

2000–24–19 Learjet: Amendment 39–12026.

Docket 2000–NM–127–AD.

Applicability: Model 35, 35A, 36, and 36A

series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent incapacitation of the flightcrew

and consequent loss of control of the airplane

due to delays in donning oxygen masks in

response to the activation of the cabin

altitude warning horn, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 10 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Emergency Procedures

Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) by accomplishing the actions

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of

this AD:

(1) Revise the title for the existing

‘‘Emergency Descent’’ section to read:

‘‘CABIN ALTITUDE WARNING HORN

ACTIVATES OR CABIN ALTITUDE

EXCEEDS 10,000 FEET (EMERGENCY

DESCENT)’’

(2) Insert the procedures specified below

between the new, revised title specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD and the existing

procedures for emergency descent specified

in the AFM.

‘‘Don Oxygen Masks and Select 100%

oxygen.’’

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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.

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: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(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.

Effective Date

(d) This amendment becomes effective on

January 4, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 22, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30396 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30215; Amdt. No. 2022]

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures; Miscellaneous

Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment establishes,

amends, suspends, or revokes Standard

Instrument Approach Procedures

(SIAPs) for operations at certain

airports. These regulatory actions are

needed because of the adoption of new

or revised criteria, or because of changes

occurring in the National Airspace

System, such as the commissioning of

new navigational facilities, addition of

new obstacles, or changes in air traffic

requirements. These changes are

designed to provide safe and efficient

use of the navigable airspace and to

promote safe flight operations under

instrument flight rules at the affected

airports.

DATES: An effective date for each SIAP

is specified in the amendatory

provisions.

Incorporation by reference-approved

by the Director of the Federal Register

on December 31, 1980, and reapproved

as of January 1, 1982.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters

incorporated by reference in the

amendment is as follows:

For Examination—

1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA

Headquarters Building, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591;

2. The FAA Regional Office of the

region in which the affected airport is

located; or

3. The Flight Inspection Area Office

which originated the SIAP.

For Purchase—Individual SIAP

copies may be obtained from:

1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA–

200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; or