Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12533

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–44–AD; Amendment 39–

9968; AD 97–06–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company (Formerly Beech

Aircraft Corporation) 35 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain Raytheon Aircraft

Company (Raytheon) 35 series airplanes

(formerly referred to as Beech 35 series

airplanes). This action requires

inspecting the ruddervator differential

tail control rod assembly for corrosion

or cracks, repairing or replacing any

cracked or corroded part, and applying

anti-corrosion sealant to the ruddervator

control pushrods. This action results

from a report of a split in the

ruddervator control push rod on an

affected airplane that was found during

a routine inspection. The split occurred

when water froze in the internal area of

the control push rod and then

expanded. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

differential tail control rod assembly,

which could result in loss of control of

the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 16, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 16,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

the Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O.

Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085.

This information may also be examined

at the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 96-CE–44-AD, Room

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

Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Larry Engler, Aerospace Safety

Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone (316) 946-4122;

facsimile (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of the

This AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain Raytheon 35 series

airplanes (formerly referred to as Beech

35 series airplanes) was published in

the Federal Register as a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

October 18, 1996 (61 FR 54372). The

NPRM proposed to require inspecting

the ruddervator differential tail control

rod assembly for corrosion or cracks,

repairing or replacing any cracked or

corroded part, and applying anticorrosion sealant to the ruddervator

control pushrods. Accomplishment of

the proposed actions as specified in the

NPRM would be in accordance with

Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin

(MSB) No. 2668, Issued: September,

1996.

The NPRM was the result of a report

of a split in the ruddervator control

push rod on an affected airplane that

was found during a routine inspection.

The split occurred when water froze in

the internal area of the control push rod

and then expanded.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed AD or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

Raytheon has revised MSB No. 2668

to clarify certain steps contained in the

ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section. The FAA has determined that

the AD could be accomplished in

accordance with either Raytheon MSB

No. 2668, Revised December, 1996; or

Raytheon MSB No. 2668, Issued:

September, 1996, and has incorporated

this service bulletin revision into the

final rule.

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the AD as proposed except for the

incorporation of the revised service

information and minor editorial

corrections. The FAA has determined

that this incorporation and the minor

corrections will not change the meaning

of the AD and will not add any

additional burden upon the public than

was already proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 10,405

airplanes in the U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 4 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the required action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of the

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$2,497,200. This figure is based on the

presumption that no affected airplane

will have a corroded or cracked part in

the ruddervator differential tail control

rod assembly that will need to be

repaired or replaced. The FAA has no

way of determining how many

ruddervator control push rods that will

be corroded or cracked.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

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)

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 final

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, Incorporation by reference,

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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
12534 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

97–06–11 Raytheon Aircraft Company

(formerly Beech Aircraft Corporation):

Amendment 39–9968; Docket No. 96–

CE–44–AD.

Applicability: Models 35, 35R, A35, B35,

C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35, M35,

N35, P35, S35, V35, V35TC, V35A, V35A–

TC, V35B, and V35B–TC airplanes, serial

numbers D–1 through D–10403, D–15001,

and D–15002, 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

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 within the next 100

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent failure of the ruddervator

differential tail control rod assembly, which

could result in loss of control of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Inspect the ruddervator differential tail

control rod assembly for cracks and corrosion

in accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Raytheon

Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 2668,

Revised: December, 1996; or Raytheon MSB

No. 2668, Issued: September, 1996. Prior to

further flight, repair or replace any corroded

or cracked part as specified in and in

accordance with the service information

referenced above.

(b) Apply anti-corrosion sealant to the

ruddervator control pushrods in accordance

with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Raytheon MSB

No. 2668, Revised: December, 1996; or

Raytheon MSB No. 2668, Issued: September,

1996.

(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.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas 67209. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

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.

(e) The inspection, repair or replacement

(if necessary), and application required by

this AD shall be done in accordance with

either Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin

No. 2668, Issued: September, 1996; or

Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin No.

2668, Revised: December, 1996. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from the

Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment (39–9968) becomes

effective on May 16, 1997.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March

7, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–6540 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–AGL–24]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Ephraim, WI, Ephraim-Fish Creek

Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class

E airspace at Ephraim, WI. A Global

Positioning System (GPS) standard

instrument approach procedure (SIAP)

to Runway 32 has been developed for

Ephraim-Fish Creek Airport. Controlled

airspace extending upward from 700 to

1200 feet above ground level (AGL) is

needed to contain aircraft executing the

approach. The intended affect of this

action is to provide segregation of

aircraft using instrument approach

procedures in instrument conditions

from other aircraft operating in visual

weather conditions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 22,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John A. Clayborn, Air Traffic Division,

Operations Branch, AGL–530, Federal

Aviation Administration, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018, telephone (847) 294–7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On Monday, December 6, 1996, the

FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) to establish Class E airspace at

Ephraim, WI (61 FR 65992). The

proposal was to add controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 to 1200 feet

AGL to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) operations in controlled airspace

during portions of the terminal

operation and while transiting between

the enroute and terminal environments.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA.

Two (2) letters of objection were

received in response to this airspace

action. The objections were based on

concerns for cost, safety, and noise. The

following concerns were raised:

1. Establishing Class E controlled

airspace, and possible future expansion

of the airport, will increase the cost to

the local taxpayers for airport

operations.

2. Establishing Class E controlled

airspace will allow larger aircraft and/or

jet aircraft to operate into and out of the

existing airport, thereby decreasing

safety at the airport.

3. Establishing Class E controlled

airspace will increase the noise levels

associated with the airport and

consequently lower the property values

for the homes immediately adjacent to

the airport.

All of these comments were

considered and evaluated. They are

responded to as follows:

1. There is no increase in direct cost

to the local taxpayer associated with

establishing Class E controlled airspace

for this airport. The Class E airspace

action is based on the GPS SIAP to

Runway 32, which is supported by the

Department of Defense system of Global

Positioning System satellites now in

orbit around the earth. Pilots desiring to

use this GPS SIAP must carry the

appropriate receiving equipment on

board their aircraft. Neither of these

costs are related to the local tax base for

the airport. Further, concern for any

possible future expansion of this airport

is not appropriate to this airspace

action, which is based on the existing

airport; therefore, this comment is

considered beyond the scope of this

airspace action. Comments concerning

any possible future expansion of the

airport should be directed to the local

airport authority.

2. Establishing Class E controlled

airspace does not by itself increase the

capability of the airport to accept larger

aircraft and/or jet aircraft. Only a

physical change to the existing runway

(i.e., longer runway stressed for heavier

aircraft) and other such related actions

(i.e., associated parking ramp