Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21471

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this long standing requirement.

The FAA estimates that 35 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 6 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 total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $12,600, or $360 per

airplane.

The total 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.

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 95–NM–03–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300–600 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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (b) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent reduced structural integrity of

the wing, accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total

flight cycles since date of manufacture of the

airplane, or within 750 flight cycles after the

effective date of the AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect cracks in the bottom skin of the wing

in the area of the cut out for the pylon rear

attachment fitting, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–57–6028, Revision 3,

dated September 13, 1994. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 9,000 flight cycles. If any crack is

detected, prior to further flight, repair the

wing bottom skin in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–13. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 April 26,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10710 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–20–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Twin

Commander Aircraft Corporation 680,

681, 690, and 695 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain Twin

Commander Aircraft Corporation (Twin

Commander) 680, 681, 690, and 695

series airplanes. The proposed action

would require installing a placard

warning the pilot to observe turbulent

air penetration speeds. Two accidents

involving Model 690 airplanes where

the affected airplanes encountered

turbulence while descending at high

speeds prompted the proposed action.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent structural

damage to the airplane caused by

excessive turbulence, which could

result in loss of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–20–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.
21472 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from the

Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation,

19010 59th Drive, N.E., Arlington,

Washington 98223. This information

also may be examined at the Rules

Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mike Pasion, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind

Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2594;

facsimile (206) 227–1181.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 95–CE–20–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, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 95–CE–20–AD, Room

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

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

Two Twin Commander Model 690C

airplanes were recently involved in

accidents where the pilot encountered

excessive turbulence while descending

at high speeds. In both of these

accidents the airplane was lost. Wind

gusts associated with turbulence can

result in increased loads on the wing,

resulting in possible airplane structural

damage and loss of the airplane.

Reducing airspeed in turbulence

reduces the effect of these gust-induced

loads during turbulence. Maintaining

airspeed at Turbulent Air Penetration

speed or Maneuvering speed provides

an increase in structural margin when

encountering turbulence. Operating the

airplane at Maneuvering speed is the

safest speed for flight in turbulence.

Turbulent Air Penetration and

Maneuvering speeds are both well

below the red-line limits of the

maximum operating limit speed (VMO/ MMO).

Twin Commander has issued Service

Bulletin No. 220, dated February 1,

1995, which re-emphasizes the

importance of reducing airspeed before

descending into known turbulence or

reducing airspeed immediately upon

entering unexpected turbulence on the

following airplanes:

Models Serial No.

680T and 680V ............ 1473 through 1720.

680W ............................ 1721 through 1850.

681 ............................... 6001 through 6072.

690 ............................... 11001 through

11079.

690A ............................. 11100 through

11344.

690B ............................. 11350 through

11566.

690C ............................ 11600 through

11735.

690D ............................ 15001 through

15042.

695 ............................... 95000 through

95084.

695A ............................. 96000 through

96100.

695B ............................. 96201 through

96208.

This service bulletin also references a

placard and airplane flight manual/pilot

operating handbook (AFM/POH)

revisions to advise airplane operators of

target speeds for operation during

turbulence.

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the accidents described above

including the referenced service

information, the FAA has determined

that AD action should be taken to

prevent structural damage to the

airplane caused by excessive

turbulence, which could result in loss of

the airplane.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Twin Commander 680,

681, 690, and 695 series airplanes

(specific models and serial numbers

presented above) of the same type

design, the proposed AD would require

incorporating a placard and AFM/POH

revisions that warn the airplane

operator of the importance of observing

the Turbulent Air Penetration and

Maneuvering speeds. The following kits

include the placard and AFM/POH

revisions:

Kit No. Model affected

SB220–1 ............................... 680T.

SB220–2 ............................... 680V.

SB220–3 ............................... 680W.

SB220–4 ............................... 681.

SB220–5 ............................... 690.

SB220–6 ............................... 690A.

SB220–7 ............................... 690B.

SB220–8 ............................... 690C.

SB220–9 ............................... 690D.

SB220–10 ............................. 695.

SB220–11 ............................. 695A.

SB220–12 ............................. 695B.

The FAA estimates that 566 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 workhour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $38 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $55,468. This figure is

based on the assumption that no

affected airplane owner/operator has

incorporated the placard and AFM/POH

revisions included with the applicable

SB220 kit. Twin Commander has

informed the FAA that no kits have

been distributed to the owners/operators

of the affected airplanes.

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 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) 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 has been placed in the Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21473

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation:

Docket No. 95–CE–20–AD.

Applicability: The following airplane

models and serial numbers, certificated in

any category.

Models Serial No.

680T and 680V ............ 1473 through 1720.

680W ............................ 1721 through 1850.

681 ............................... 6001 through 6072.

690 ............................... 11001 through

11079.

690A ............................. 11100 through

11344.

690B ............................. 11350 through

11566.

690C ............................ 11600 through

11735.

690D ............................ 15001 through

15042.

695 ............................... 95000 through

95084.

695A ............................. 96000 through

96100.

695B ............................. 96201 through

96208.

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) of this AD to

request approval from the FAA. This

approval may address either no action, if the

current configuration eliminates the unsafe

condition, or different actions necessary to

address the unsafe condition described in

this AD. Such a request should include an

assessment of the effect of the changed

configuration on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. In no case does the

presence of any modification, alteration, or

repair remove any airplane from the

applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required within the next 50

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent structural damage to the

airplane caused by excessive turbulence,

which could result in loss of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Install the placard (to the windshield

centerpost) and incorporate the airplane

flight manual/pilot operating handbook

(AFM/POH) revisions that are included with

the kits presented below. The placard and

AFM/POH revisions provide warnings to the

airplane operator of the importance of

observing the Turbulent Air Penetration and

Maneuvering speeds:

Kit No. Model affected

SB220–1 ............................... 680T.

SB220–2 ............................... 680V.

SB220–3 ............................... 680W.

SB220–4 ............................... 681.

SB220–5 ............................... 690.

SB220–6 ............................... 690A.

SB220–7 ............................... 690B.

SB220–8 ............................... 690C.

SB220–9 ............................... 690D.

SB220–10 ............................. 695.

SB220–11 ............................. 695A.

SB220–12 ............................. 695B.

Note 2: Twin Commander Service Bulletin

No. 220, dated February 1, 1995, relates to

the subject of this AD, and references the

SB220 service kits specified above.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Northwest

Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. The

request shall be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(d) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to the Twin

Commander Aircraft Corporation, 19010 59th

Drive, NE., Arlington, Washington 98223; or

may examine this document at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

26, 1995.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10711 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–AGL–1]

Proposed Modification of Class D

Airspace and Removal of Class E

Airspace, Rockford, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

modify the Class D airspace area and

remove the Class E2 airspace area at

Greater Rockford Airport, Rockford, IL.

The Rockford Air Traffic Control Tower

(ATCT) is a continuous (24 Hour a day)

operation. The intent of this proposal is

to amend the Class D airspace area’s

effective hours to coincide with the

associated control tower’s hours of

operation, by changing the Class D

airspace from part-time to full-time. The

Class E2 airspace was previously

needed to clarify when two-way radio

communication with the ATCT was

required and to provide adequate Class

E airspace for instrument approach

procedures when the control tower is

closed. The airspace is no longer needed

since the ATCT is now a continuous

operation; therefore, the intent is to

remove the part-time Class E2 airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rules

Docket No. 95–AGL–1, 2300 East Devon

Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Federal Aviation

Administration, 2300 East Devon

Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. An

informal docket may also be examined

during normal business hours at the Air

Traffic Division, System Management

Branch, Federal Aviation

Administration, 2300 East Devon

Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angeline Perri, Air Traffic Division,

System Management Branch, AGL–530,

Federal Aviation Administration, 2300

East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018, telephone (708) 294–7571.