Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2131 

required reserve be calculated? Some 

possibilities could include a percentage 

of the original loan amount of the CDC’s 

504 portfolio, a percentage of the 

current outstanding loan amount of the 

CDC’s 504 portfolio, a percentage of the 

annual fees received by the CDC as a 

result of its 504 lending, or a percentage 

of the CDC’s remaining funds. Another 

approach would be to calculate the 

required reserve as a dollar amount 

equal to at least six months, but no more 

than 12 months, of staff and overhead 

expenses of the CDC. 

6. Should SBA limit the amount that 

CDCs may retain as a reserve for future 

operations? If not, why not? If yes, what 

would be a reasonable maximum 

amount to allow as a reserve? 

7. Should a CDC be able to decide that 

the reserve option would be a more 

prudent use of its remaining funds than 

economic development investments to 

ensure that it has the ability to ‘‘sustain 

its operations continuously’’? Why or 

why not? 

8. Should SBA require CDCs to first 

apply any remaining funds to the 

reserve for future operations before 

using any remaining funds for 

investments? Please provide reasons for 

your response. 

9. What requirements, if any, should 

apply to a CDC’s remaining funds if it 

voluntarily decertifies or is removed 

from the 504 Loan Program? Should the 

CDC be required to invest these funds in 

local economic development activities 

prior to decertification or removal? 

10. What types of economic 

development activities should be 

included in the definition of 

‘‘acceptable investments in economic 

development’’? Are there any activities 

that should not be included in the 

definition? Examples of such acceptable 

investments in economic development 

could include loans, grants or other 

forms of direct financial support that are 

issued by the CDC for: (1) Other federal, 

state or local lending programs, such as 

microlending or revolving loan funds; 

(2) Small Business Development 

Centers; (3) business incubators; (4) 

industrial development; and (5) other 

non-profit economic development 

entities. Should the definition include 

business or technical procurement 

assistance provided by the CDC or paid 

for by the CDC? 

Interested parties are invited to 

provide any other comments that they 

may have relating to the issues 

described in this Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. We ask that you 

provide a brief justification for any 

suggested changes. 

Dated: January 7, 2016. 

Maria Contreras-Sweet, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–00731 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–2134; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–CE–012–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; B/E 

Aerospace Protective Breathing 

Equipment Part Number 119003–11 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain B/E Aerospace protective 

breathing equipment (PBE) that is 

installed on airplanes. The NPRM 

proposed inspecting the PBE to 

determine if the pouch has the proper 

vacuum seal and replacing if necessary. 

The NPRM was prompted by reports of 

a compromise in the vacuum seal of the 

pouch that contains the PBE. This 

action revises the NPRM by requiring 

replacement of the PBE following newly 

issued service information regardless of 

inspection results. We are proposing 

this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to 

correct the unsafe condition on these 

products. Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the NPRM, we are reopening the 

comment period to allow the public the 

chance to comment on these proposed 

changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this SNPRM by February 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed rule, contact B/E 

Aerospace, Inc., Commercial Aircraft 

Products Group, 10800 Pflumm Road, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66215; telephone: (913) 

338–9800; fax: (913) 338–8419; Internet: 

www.beaerospace.com. You may review 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

2134; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Enns, Aerospace Engineer, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, 

Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 

946–4147; fax: (316) 946–4107; email: 

david.enns@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2015–2134; Directorate Identifier 

2015–CE–012–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2132 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain B/E Aerospace 

protective breathing equipment (PBE) 

that is installed on airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 16, 2015 (80 FR 34330). The NPRM 

proposed to require inspecting the PBE 

to determine if the pouch has the proper 

vacuum seal and replacing if necessary. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM (80 FR 

34330, June 16, 2015), further 

investigation into the fire of the PBE, 

part number (P/N) 119003–11, found 

that the ignitor candles from the PBE 

units that caught fire had a breach of the 

filter in the candle assembly. The breach 

of the filter in the candle assembly 

allowed hot particles from the igniter 

candle to enter the oxygen rich 

environment of the PBE hood, which 

could cause a fire. All ignitor candles 

that were examined after fire events 

showed a breach in the filter. Due to the 

complexities involved with the 

chemical reaction within the candle, a 

definitive cause for the breached filters 

has not been identified. B/E Aerospace 

PBE, P/N 119003–21, contains a 

stainless steel mesh in the outlet path of 

the igniter candle. It has been 

established that the installation of the 

stainless steel mesh will prevent hot 

particles from entering the PBE hood as 

a result of a breached filter. Also, it was 

initially believed that the fire events 

occurred only with PBEs that had 

compromised vacuum sealed pouches. 

Two recent events occurred with PBEs 

that were reported by the operators to be 

in serviceable conditions, although the 

FAA and PBE manufacturer could not 

verify the condition of the pouch or PBE 

before the event. Therefore, we can no 

longer conclude that a PBE, P/N 

119003–11, with an intact vacuum seal 

will prevent the possibility of spark and 

fire. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in the PBE catching fire. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the NPRM (80 FR 34330, 

June 16, 2015). The following presents 

the comments received on the NPRM 

(80 FR 34330, June 16, 2015) and the 

FAA’s response to each comment. 

Request To Change Cost of Compliance 

Section 

B/E Aerospace, Inc. requested that the 

labor cost stated for doing the 

inspection be changed from .5 workhour to .1 work-hour. 

The commenter stated that the 

manpower specified in the related 

service bulletin for doing the inspection 

is 1 minute for 1 person. By comparison, 

the labor cost stated in the NPRM is .5 

work-hour. The commenter believes that 

0.5 work-hour is unreasonably long 

based on experience with the PBE. The 

commenter also stated that as a 

consequence, this aspect of the NPRM 

incorrectly suggests a substantial burden 

on the industry given the number of 

PBE units requiring the inspection. 

The commenter requested that the 

labor cost for doing the inspection be 

changed to be consistent with the 

related service information. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter. Even though we agree that 

it may take less than .5 work-hour to 

inspect the PBE, it is FAA practice to 

present labor cost in .5 work-hour 

increments. We have not changed this 

proposed AD based on this comment. 

Request To Change Applicability 

Airbus stated that the Applicability 

section should also include PBE, P/N 

119003–21, all FAA-approved PBEs. 

The commenter stated that the candle 

in PBE, P/N 119003–21, is identical to 

the one in PBE, P/N 119003–11, and the 

abnormal behavior of the candle is also 

possible on the PBE, P/N 119003–21. 

The remaining effects of a candle 

malfunction from a PBE, P/N 119003– 

21, are still not sufficiently known, e.g. 

functional aspects, heat, or generation of 

noxious gases. A compromised seal 

could also lead to a malfunction of a 

PBE, P/N 119003–21, or other FAAapproved PBEs as well. 

The commenter requested that the 

inspections also apply to PBE, P/N 

119003–21, and all other FAA-approved 

PBEs as well. 

We do not agree with the commenter. 

Our investigation revealed that the 

cause of the unsafe condition has been 

limited to PBE, P/N 119003–11. The 

manufacturer has tested PBE, P/N 

119003–21, with candle assemblies that 

had a breach in the filter. The PBE, P/ 

N 119003–21, has been shown to stop 

hot particles from entering the hood and 

causing a fire. Due to additional testing 

and investigation, this proposed AD 

now requires replacing the PBE, P/N 

119003–11, with a PBE, P/N 119003–21, 

or other FAA-approved PBE. We are still 

allowing inspecting the PBE, P/N 

119003–11, until the required 

replacement time. 

We have not changed this proposed 

AD based on this comment. 

Request To Include Allowance for 

Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Relief 

United Airlines requested 

incorporating existing MEL procedures 

into the AD. 

The commenter stated that the 

proposed AD requires replacing a PBE 

that has a compromised vacuum seal 

before further flight. The commenter 

requested a revision to the AD to allow 

airplane operation with a minimum 

equipment list (MEL). 

We agree with the commenter. An 

MEL is intended to permit operation 

with inoperative instruments or 

equipment for a period of time until 

repairs can be done. Repairs must be 

done at the earliest opportunity. To 

maintain an acceptable level of safety 

and reliability, the MEL establishes 

limitations on the duration of and 

conditions for operation with 

inoperative equipment. 

We have changed this proposed AD 

based on this comment. 

Related Service Information Under 

1 CFR Part 51 

We reviewed B/E Aerospace Service 

Bulletin No. 119003–35–011, Rev. 000, 

dated February 4, 2015, and Service 

Bulletin 119003–35–009, Rev. 009, 

dated November 9, 2015. The B/E 

Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003– 

35–011, Rev. 000, dated February 4, 

2015, describes procedures for 

inspecting PBE, P/N 119003–11, to 

determine if the vacuum seal of the 

pouch containing the PBE is 

compromised. B/E Aerospace Service 

Bulletin 119003–35–009, Rev. 009, 

dated November 9, 2015, describes 

procedures for replacing PBE, P/N 

119003–11, with P/N 119003–21. This 

service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in the ADDRESSES section of 

this SNPRM. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this SNPRM 

because we evaluated all the relevant 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition described previously is likely 

to exist or develop in other products of 

the same type design. Certain changes 

described above expand the scope of the 

NPRM (80 FR 34330, June 16, 2015). As 

a result, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

the public to comment on this SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM 

This SNPRM would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2133 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between this SNPRM and 

the Service Information. 

Differences Between This SNPRM and 

the Service Information 

B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 

119003–35–011, Rev. 000, dated 

February 4, 2015, applies to all PBE 

with P/N 119003–11 and P/N 119003– 

21. We have determined that this 

proposed AD would apply only to a PBE 

with P/N 119003–11 with regard to the 

inspection requirement of paragraph (g) 

of this proposed AD. B/E Aerospace 

Service Bulletin 119003–35–009, Rev. 

009, dated November 9, 2015, includes 

instructions for disposal. In this 

proposed AD, we are requiring only the 

replacement action. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 9,000 products installed on 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspecting the pouch containing the PBE for 

proper vacuum seal.

.5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 ......... Not applicable ... $42.50 $382,500 

Replace the PBE P/N 119003–11 with a 

PBE P/N 119003–21.

.5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 ......... $1,510 .............. 1,552.50 13,972,500 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify 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), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

B/E Aerospace: Docket No. FAA–2015–2134; 

Directorate Identifier 2015–CE–012–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by February 

29, 2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to B/E Aerospace 

Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE), part 

number (P/N) 119003–11, that is installed on 

airplanes. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 35; Oxygen. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of a 

PBE, P/N 119003–11, catching fire upon 

activation by a crewmember. We are issuing 

this AD to correct the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection 

Within 3 months after the effective date of 

this AD, while still in the stowage box, 

physically inspect the PBE pouch to 

determine if it has an intact vacuum seal. Do 

this inspection following paragraph III.A.1. of 

the Accomplishment Instructions in B/E 

Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003–35– 

011. Rev. 000, dated February 4, 2015. 

(h) Replacement 

(1) If a PBE pouch is found that does not 

have an intact vacuum seal during the 

inspection required in paragraph (g) of this 

AD: Before further flight or following existing 

minimum equipment list (MEL) procedures, 

replace the PBE with a PBE, P/N 119003–21, 

following paragraphs III.C., III.D.(4), III.D.(6), 

and III.D.(7) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions in B/E Aerospace Service 

Bulletin No. 119003–35–009, Rev. 000, dated 

November 9, 2015, or replace it with another 

FAA-approved serviceable PBE. 

(2) If a PBE pouch is found during the 

inspection required in paragraph (g) of this 

AD where the vacuum seal is intact: Within 

18 months after the effective date of this AD, 

remove PBE, P/N 119003–11, and replace the 

PBE with PBE, P/N 119003–21, following 

paragraphs III.C., III.D.(4), III.D.(6), and 

III.D.(7) of the Accomplishment Instructions 

in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 

119003–35–009, Rev. 000, dated November 9, 

2015, or replace it with another FAAapproved serviceable PBE. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2134 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact David Enns, Aerospace Engineer, 

Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, 

Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 

(316) 946–4147; fax: (316) 946–4107; email: 

david.enns@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact B/E Aerospace, Inc., 10800 

Pflumm Road, Commercial Aircraft Products 

Group, Lenexa, Kansas 66215; telephone: 

(913) 338–9800; fax: (913) 338–8419; 

Internet: www.beaerospace.com. You may 

review this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 

6, 2016. 

Kelly Broadway, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–00374 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–0068; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–CE–037–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

SOCATA Models MS 880B, MS 885, MS 

892A–150, MS 892E–150, MS 893A, MS 

893E, MS 894A, MS 894E, Rallye 100S, 

Rallye 150ST, Rallye 150T, Rallye 235E, 

and Rallye 235C airplanes that would 

supersede AD 92–06–10. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as fatigue failure of the nose 

landing gear wheel axle. We are issuing 

this proposed AD to require actions to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact SOCATA, 

Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes 

Cedex 9, France; phone: +33 (0) 5 62 41 

73 00; fax: +33 (0) 5 62 41 76 54; email: 

info@socata.daher.com; Internet: http:// 

www.tbm.aero/. For the United States, 

contact SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, 

North Perry Airport, 601 NE 10 Street, 

Pompano Beach, Florida 33060; phone: 

(954) 366–3331; Internet: http://

www.socatanorthamerica.com/

default.htm. You may review copies of 

the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– 

4119; fax: (816) 329–4090; email: 

albert.mercado@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2016–0068; Directorate Identifier 

2015–CE–037–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On February 25, 1992, we issued AD 

92–06–10, Amendment 39–8190 (57 FR 

8063; March 6, 1992) (‘‘92–06–10’’). 

That AD required actions intended to 

address an unsafe condition on 

SOCATA Models MS 880B, MS 885, MS 

894A, MS 893A, MS 892A–150, MS 

892E–150, MS 893E, MS 894E, Rallye 

100S, Rallye 150T, Rallye 150ST, Rallye 

235E, and Rallye 235C airplanes and 

was based on mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country. 

Since we issued AD 92–06–10, new 

findings led to an adjustment of the 

inspection intervals. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD 2015– 

0203, dated October 7, 2015 (referred to 

after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

A nose landing gear (NLG) wheel axle 

rupture occurred in service. The results of 

the technical investigation revealed that this 

failure was due to premature wear. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to cracks in the axle 

and detachment of axle and wheel, possibly 

resulting in failure of the NLG with 

consequent damage to the aeroplane and 

injury to occupants. 

To address this potential unsafe condition, 

DGAC France issued AD 91–163(A) (later 

revised twice) to require repetitive detailed 

inspections (DET) of the NLG wheel axle and 

replacement of the NLG wheel axle 

attachment screws in accordance with the 

instructions of SOCATA Service Bulletin 

(SB) 150–32. 

Since DGAC France AD 91–163(A)R2 was 

issued, new findings led to an adjustment of 

the inspection interval. Consequently, 

SOCATA issued SB 150–32, now at Revision 

3. 

For the reasons described above, this new 

AD retains the requirements of the DGAC 

France AD 91–163(A)R2, which is 

superseded, but requires these actions to be 

accomplished within reduced intervals. 

You may examine the MCAI on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2016–0068. 

Related Service Information Under 

1 CFR Part 51 

SOCATA has issued Daher-Socata 

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 150–32, 

Revision 3, dated September 2015. The 

service bulletin describes procedures for 

inspection of the nose gear wheel axle. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS