This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

8885 

Vol. 74, No. 38 

Friday, February 27, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0165; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–CE–055–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Hawker 

Beechcraft Corporation (Type 

Certificate Previously Held by 

Raytheon Aircraft Company) Models 

1900, 1900C, and 1900D Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006–24– 

11, which applies to certain Hawker 

Beechcraft Corporation (Hawker) (Type 

Certificate previously held by Raytheon 

Aircraft Company) Models 1900, 1900C, 

and 1900D airplanes. AD 2006–24–11 

currently requires you to repetitively 

inspect the forward, vertical, and aft 

flanges of both the left and right wing 

rear spar lower caps for cracks, repair 

any cracks found, and report the 

inspection results to the manufacturer. 

Since we issued AD 2006–24–11, the 

manufacturer has developed a 

modification kit to install on the wing 

rear spar lower caps that would 

terminate the 200-hour repetitive 

inspection required in AD 2006–24–11. 

Consequently, this proposed AD would 

require installing the new modification 

kits on the wing rear spar lower caps 

and would terminate the repetitive 

inspections required in AD 2006–24–11 

when the kits are installed. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent fatigue 

cracks in the wing rear spar lower caps, 

which could result in fatigue failure of 

the wing rear spar lower caps. A rear 

spar failure could result in complete 

wing failure and the wing separating 

from the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD: 

• 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 Hawker 

Beechcraft Corporation, Attn: Airline 

Technical Support, P.O. Box 85, 

Wichita, Kansas 67201; telephone: (800) 

429–5372; fax: (316) 676–8745; Internet: 

http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Potter, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, 

Wichita, Kansas 67209, phone: (316) 

946–4124, fax: (316) 946–4107. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number, ‘‘FAA–2009–0165; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–CE–055–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light 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 

concerning this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued Emergency AD 2006–18– 

51, Amendment 39–14757 on August 

31, 2006 (71 FR 52983, September 8, 

2006), due to significant cracks found in 

the wing rear spar lower caps of Hawker 

Beechcraft Model 1900D airplanes. AD 

2006–18–51 applies to certain Hawker 

Beechcraft Models 1900, 1900C, and 

1900D airplanes and currently requires 

a one-time visual inspection of both the 

left and right wing rear spar lower caps 

for cracking and other damage such as 

loose or missing fasteners; repairing any 

cracks or damage found; and reporting 

any cracks or damage found to the FAA 

and the manufacturer. 

After complying with AD 2006–18– 

51, additional fatigue cracks found in 

the affected area of the wing rear spar 

lower caps on certain Hawker 

Beechcraft Models 1900, 1900C, and 

1900D airplanes caused us to issue AD 

2006–24–11, Amendment 39–14840 (71 

FR 70297, December 4, 2006). AD 2006– 

24–11 does not supersede or revise 

Emergency AD 2006–18–51 because 

both ADs are necessary to address the 

unsafe condition. AD 2006–24–11 

currently requires the following on 

certain Hawker Beechcraft Models 1900, 

1900C, and 1900D airplanes: 

• Repetitively inspecting the forward, 

vertical, and aft flanges of both the left 

and right wing rear spar lower caps for 

cracks; 

• Repairing any cracks found; and 

• Reporting the inspection results to 

manufacturer. 

Since we issued AD 2006–24–11, the 

manufacturer has developed a 

modification kit to install on the wing 

rear spar lower caps that would 

terminate the 200-hour repetitive 

inspection required in AD 2006–24–11 

when installed. The FAA’s aging 

commuter aircraft policy briefly states 

that, when a modification exists that 

could eliminate or reduce the number of 

required critical inspections, the 

modification should be incorporated. 

This policy is based on the FAA’s 

determination that reliance on critical 

repetitive inspections on airplanes 

utilized in commuter service carries an 

unnecessary safety risk when a design 

change exists that could eliminate or, in 

certain instances, reduce the number of 

those critical inspections. In 

determining what inspections are 

critical, the FAA considers (1) The 

safety consequences of the airplane if 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
8886 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 38 / Friday, February 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the known problem is not detected by 

the inspection; (2) the reliability of the 

inspection such as the probability of not 

detecting the known problem; (3) 

whether the inspection area is difficult 

to access; and (4) the possibility of 

damage to an adjacent structure as a 

result of the problem. 

The alternative to modifying the wing 

rear spar lower caps with a modification 

kit that improves the fatigue life would 

be to repetitively inspect this area for 

the life of the airplane. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in fatigue failure of the wing rear 

spar lower caps. A rear spar failure 

could result in complete wing failure 

and the wing separating from the 

airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Hawker Beechcraft 

Mandatory Corporation Service Bulletin 

SB 57–3816, issued January 2008. 

The service information describes 

procedures for installing wing rear spar 

lower cap modification kits. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all information and 

determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. This proposed AD would 

supersede AD 2006–24–11 with a new 

AD that would require you to install 

modification kits on the wing rear spar 

lower caps. This proposed AD would 

also retain the repetitive inspections 

currently required in AD 2006–24–11 

until the modification kits are installed. 

This proposed AD would require you to 

use the service information described 

previously to perform these actions. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 243 airplanes in the U.S. 

registry. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

the proposed inspections: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

Total cost on 

U.S. operators 

10 work-hours × $80 per hour = $800 ........................................................................................ $20 $820 $199,260 

We estimate the following costs to do 

the proposed modification: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

Total cost on 

U.S. operators 

250 work-hours × $80 per hour = $20,000 ................................................................................. $2,200 $22,200 $5,394,600 

We have determined that the average 

life to date of the affected airplanes is 

16 years and the average usage rate 

annually is 1,571 hours time-in-service. 

The cost analysis shows that, based on 

the average age and usage, AD 2006–24– 

11 requires approximately 7.9 

inspections per year with an 

approximate annual cost of $6,500. 

Based on the cost analysis, we have 

determined that the proposed 

modification would start showing a cost 

savings over the repetitive inspection 

currently required in AD 2006–24–11 

after 5 years. This determination is 

made based on the assumption that the 

life-span of the airplanes affected by this 

proposed AD is between 25 to 40 years. 

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 Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objective of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. 

To achieve that principle, the RFA 

requires agencies to solicit and consider 

flexible regulatory proposals and to 

explain the rationale for their actions. 

The RFA covers a wide-range of small 

entities, including small businesses, 

not-for-profit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the RFA 

provides that the head of the agency 

may so certify and a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. The 

FAA did make such a determination for 

this proposed AD. The basis for this 

determination is now discussed. 

This proposed AD would supersede 

existing AD 2006–24–11. The cost 

analysis for the proposed AD shows that 

the proposed modification will have a 

cost savings from the accumulative 

repetitive inspection cost now required 

in AD 2006–24–11, reflecting cost 

savings for 241 of the 243 affected 

airplanes. For the two firms the analysis 

did not show a cost savings, we have 

identified one as a subsidiary of General 

Electric Capital Corporation and the 

other as the subsidiary of a firm that is 

probably large. General Electric Capital 

Corporation is not a small entity. We 

were unable to determine the size 

classification of the other firm. Even if 

the corporate parent of the unidentified 

firm is a small firm, this proposed rule 

would impact at most one firm, and one 

firm is not a substantial number. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 38 / Friday, February 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 8887 

Therefore, the Acting FAA 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not impose a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have 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 that the 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. 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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket that 

contains the proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 

or in person at the Docket Management 

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is located at the street 

address stated in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

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 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2006–24–11, Amendment 39–14840 (71 

FR 70297, December 4, 2006), and 

adding the following new AD: 

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type 

Certificate previously held by Raytheon 

Aircraft Company): Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0165; Directorate Identifier 2008– 

CE–055–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 

28, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2006–24–11, 

Amendment 39–14840. AD 2006–18–51 

relates to the subject of this AD. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the following 

airplane models and serial numbers that are 

certificated in any category: 

Group 1 model 

airplanes Serial Nos. 

(1) 1900 ..................... UA–3. 

(2) 1900C (C–12J) .... UB–1 through UB–74. 

Group 2 model 

airplanes 

Serial Nos. 

(1) 1900C (C–12J) .... UC–1 through UC– 

174, and UD–1 

through UD–6. 

(2) 1900D .................. UE–1 through UE– 

439. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from the manufacturer 

developing a modification kit to install on 

the wing rear spar lower caps that would 

terminate the 200-hour repetitive inspection 

required in AD 2006–24–11. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent fatigue cracks in the wing 

rear spar lower caps, which could result in 

fatigue failure of the wing rear spar lower 

caps. A rear spar failure could result in 

complete wing failure and the wing 

separating from the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) To address this problem, you must do 

the following, unless already done: 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(1) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes: Repetitively inspect both the left and right wing rear 

spar lower caps for cracks and other damage, such as loose or missing fasteners.

Repetitively inspect at intervals not to exceed 

200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the 

last inspection required by AD 2006–24–11.

Follow the procedures in Raytheon Mandatory 

Service Bulletin 57–3815, Issued: October, 

2006. 

(2) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes: If 

cracks are found, repair all cracks by obtaining and incorporating an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer.

Before further flight after any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where 

cracks are found.

For the repair scheme, contact Hawker 

Beechcraft Corporation at P.O. Box 85, 

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; phone: (800) 

429–5372; fax: (316) 676–8745; e-mail: 

tom_peay@rac.ray.com. 

(3) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes: Report 

the inspection results to Hawker Beechcraft 

Company (formerly Raytheon Aircraft Company) using the instructions and forms in the 

service bulletin. Complete all sections of the 

required forms. Reporting requirements have 

been approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 2120–0056.

Report the repetitive inspection results within 

30 days after the inspection.

Follow the procedures in Raytheon Mandatory 

Service Bulletin 57–3815, Issued: October, 

2006. 

(4) For Group 1 airplanes: Install Modification 

Kit 114–4052–1 and Modification Kit 114– 

4067–0001.

Upon reaching 22,000 total hours TIS or within the next 3 years after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs later. Installing 

the modification kits terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph 

(e)(1) of this AD.

Follow the procedures in Hawker Beechcraft 

Mandatory Service Bulletin 57–3816, 

Issued: January, 2008. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
8888 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 38 / Friday, February 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(5) For Group 2 airplanes: Install Modification 

Kit 118–4012–1 or 118–4012–3 and Modification Kit 118–4014–0003.

Upon reaching 22,000 total hours TIS or within the next 3 years after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs later. Installing 

the modification kits terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph 

(e)(1) of this AD.

Follow the procedures in Hawker Beechcraft 

Mandatory Service Bulletin 57–3816, 

Issued: January, 2008. 

(6) For all affected Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes: You may install the modification kits 

specified in paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) of 

this AD at any time before the required compliance times specified in paragraphs (e)(4) 

and (e)(5) of this AD. Installing the modification kits terminates the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

As of the effective date of this AD ................... Not applicable. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(f) 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. Send information to ATTN: Steve 

Potter, Aerospace Engineer, ACE–118W, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, 

Kansas 67209, phone: (316) 946–4124, fax: 

(316) 946–4107. Before using any approved 

AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 

applies, notify your appropriate principal 

inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your 

local FSDO. 

(g) AMOCs approved for AD 2006–24–11 

are not approved for this AD. 

Related Information 

(h) To get copies of the service information 

referenced in this AD, contact Hawker 

Beechcraft, Attn: Airline Technical Support, 

P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201; 

telephone: (800) 429–5372; fax: (316) 676– 

8745; Internet: http:// 

www.hawkerbeechcraft.com. To view the AD 

docket, go to U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

February 19, 2009. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–4213 Filed 2–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0485; A–1–FRL– 

8771–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; 2009 Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets for the BostonManchester-Portsmouth (SE), New 

Hampshire, 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

New Hampshire. This revision contains 

8-hour ozone transportation conformity 

emission budgets for the BostonManchester-Portsmouth (SE), New 

Hampshire, 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. This action is being taken under 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 30, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2008–0485 by one of the following 

methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0485’’, Anne Arnold, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code 

CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), 

Boston, MA 02114–2023. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), 

Boston, MA 02114–2023, telephone 

number (617) 918–1668, fax number 

(617) 918–0668, e-mail 

cooke.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS