Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20887

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–10478 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

10 CFR Part 1703

FOIA Fee Schedule

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board.

ACTION: Update of FOIA fee schedule.

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board is publishing its

annual update to the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule

pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the

Board’s regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth M. Pusateri, General Manager,

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,

625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20004–2901, (202) 208–

6447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOIA

requires each Federal agency covered by

the Act to specify a schedule of fees

applicable to processing of requests for

agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). On

March 15, 1991 the Board published for

comment in the Federal Register its

proposed FOIA Fee Schedule. 56 FR

11114. No comments were received in

response to that notice and the Board

issued a final Fee Schedule on May 6,

1991.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of

the Board’s regulations, the Board’s

General Manager will update the FOIA

Fee Schedule once every 12 months.

Previous Fee Schedule updates were

published in the Federal Register and

went into effect, most recently, on May

1, 1994. 59 FR 21640.

Board Action

Accordingly, the Board issues the

following schedule of updated fees for

services performed in response to FOIA

requests:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board Schedule of Fees for FOIA

Service

[Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)]

Search or Review

Charge.

$44 per hour.

Copy Charge (paper) $.05 per page or generally available

commercial rate

(approximately

$.10 per page).

Copy Charge (3.5′′

diskette).

$5.00 per diskette.

Copy Charge (audio

cassette).

$3.00 per cassette.

Duplication of Video $25.00 per video;

$16.50 for each additional video

Copy Charge for

large documents

(e.g., maps, diagrams).

Actual commercial

rate.

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Kenneth M. Pusateri,

General Manager.

[FR Doc. 95–10462 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3670–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–69–AD; Amendment

39–9208; AD 95–09–05]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model Avro 146–RJ Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain British Aerospace

Model Avro 146–RJ series airplanes.

This action requires a revision to the

FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to alert the flightcrew of the

potential for significant delays in the

Honeywell Standard Windshear

Detection and Recovery Guidance

System (WSS) detecting windshear

when the flaps of the airplane are in

transition. This amendment is prompted

by a report of an accident during which

an airplane encountered severe

windshear during a missed approach.

The actions specified in this AD are

intended to ensure that the flightcrew is

aware that there may be significant

delays in the WSS detecting windshear

when the flaps of the airplane are in

transition.

DATES: Effective on May 15, 1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

69–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The information concerning this

amendment may be obtained from or

examined at FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk

Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and

Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,

Lakewood, California 90712–4137;

telephone (310) 627–5345; fax (310)

627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recently,

the FAA received a report of an accident

during which the flightcrew executed a

missed approach following an

instrument landing system (ILS)

approach. A McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9–31 series airplane equipped with

Honeywell Windshear Detection and

Recovery Guidance System (WSS) was

involved in this accident. Investigation

into the cause of this accident revealed

that the airplane encountered severe

windshear during the missed approach.

The FAA has determined that a design

feature in the windshear computer

delayed the detection of windshear

when the airplane’s flaps were in

transition. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in the flightcrew

being unaware of the potential for

significant delays in the WSS detecting

windshear when the flaps of the

airplane are in transition.

On February 14, 1995, the FAA issued

AD 95–04–01, amendment 39–9153 (60

FR 9619, February 21, 1995), applicable

to various transport category airplanes

equipped with a Honeywell Standard

Windshear Detection and Recovery

Guidance System (WSS). That AD

requires a revision to the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to alert

the flightcrew of the potential for

significant delays in the WSS detecting

windshear when the flaps of the

airplane are in transition. The actions

required by that AD are intended to

prevent the flightcrew from failing to

realize that the WSS does not detect

windshear in a timely manner when the

flaps of the airplane are in transition,
20888 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

which could result in loss of control of

the airplane.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has identified three additional

U.S.-registered airplanes that are

equipped with Honeywell WSS and,

therefore, subject to the same unsafe

condition addressed by AD 95–04–01.

The additional airplanes are all Model

Avro 146–RJ series airplanes,

manufactured by British Aerospace.

This airplane model is manufactured

in the United Kingdom and is type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. The FAA has determined

that AD action is necessary for products

of this type design that are certificated

for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, this AD is being issued to ensure

that the flightcrew of Model Avro 146–

RJ series airplanes is aware that there

may be significant delays in the WSS

detecting windshear when the flaps of

the airplane are in transition. This AD

requires a revision to the FAA-approved

AFM to alert the flightcrew of the

potential for significant delays in the

WSS detecting windshear when the

flaps of the airplane are in transition.

This is considered to be interim

action. Once a modification is

developed, approved, and available, the

FAA may consider additional

rulemaking.

Note: The FAA’s normal policy is that

when an AD requires a substantive change,

such as a change (expansion) in its

applicability, the ‘‘old’’ AD is superseded by

removing it from the system and a new AD

is added. In the case of this AD action, the

FAA normally would have superseded AD

95–04–01 to expand its applicability to

include the 3 additional affected airplanes.

However, in reconsideration of the entire

fleet size that would be affected by a

supersedure action (approximately 3,000 U.S.

registered airplanes), and the consequent

workload associated with revising

maintenance record entries, the FAA has

determined that a less burdensome approach

is to issue a separate AD applicable only to

these 3 additional airplanes. Operators

should note that this AD does not supersede

AD 95–04–01; airplanes listed in the

applicability of AD 95–04–01 are required to

continue to comply with the requirements of

that AD. This AD is a separate AD action, and

is applicable only to Model Avro 146–RJ

series airplanes equipped with Honeywell

WSS having part number 4048300–902.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications shall identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 95–NM–69–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, 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. 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:

95–09–05 British Aerospace Regional

Aircraft Limited, Avro International

Aerospace Division (Formerly British

Aerospace, plc; British Aerospace

Commercial Aircraft Limited):

Amendment 39–9208. Docket 95–NM–

69–AD.

Applicability: Model Avro 146–RJ70A,

–RJ85A, and –RJ100A airplanes; equipped

with Honeywell Standard Windshear

Detection and Recovery Guidance System

(WSS), part number 4048300–902;

certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure that the flight crew is aware of

significant delays in the Windshear Detection

and Recovery Guidance System (WSS)

detecting windshear when the flaps of the

airplane are in transition, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 14 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of

the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to include the following statement.

This may be accomplished by inserting a

copy of this AD in the AFM.

‘‘During sustained banks of greater than 15

degrees or during flap configuration changes,

the Honeywell Windshear Detection and

Recovery Guidance System (WSS) is

desensitized and alerts resulting from
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20889

encountering windshear conditions will be

delayed.

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Operations

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(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) This amendment becomes effective on

May 15, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10319 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–127–AD; Amendment

39–9207; AD 95–09–04]

Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland

Model DHC–8–100 and –300 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain de Havilland

Model DHC–8–100 and –300 series

airplanes, that requires an inspection to

verify the integrity of the shield grounds

for the cable harness of the electronic

engine control (EEC), and correction of

any discrepancy. This amendment also

requires measurement of the electrical

resistance of certain shield grounds, and

repair, if necessary. This amendment is

prompted by a report of an engine

flameout after a lightning strike, due to

several shields for the cable harness of

the EEC not being properly grounded to

the airframe. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent engine

flameout due to insufficient protection

of the EEC.

DATES: Effective May 30, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 30,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Bombardier Inc., Bombardier

Regional Aircraft Division, Garratt

Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario, Canada

M3K 1Y5. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York;

or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANE–174, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,

New York 11581; telephone (516) 256–

7504; fax (516) 568–2716.

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 certain de

Havilland Model DHC–8–100 and –300

series airplanes, was published in the

Federal Register on September 21, 1994

(59 FR 48408). That action proposed to

require a visual inspection to verify the

integrity of the shield grounds for the

cable harness of the EEC, and correction

of any discrepancy. That action also

proposed to require measurement of the

electrical resistance of certain shield

grounds, and repair, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter requests that the

proposed 45-day compliance time in

paragraph (b) of the proposed AD be

extended to permit operators to

schedule the proposed actions

according to the size of their individual

fleets and, specifically, to allow up to

165 days for a fleet-wide inspection.

The commenter bases this request on

the following factors:

1. The commenter states that, to

accomplish the proposed measurement

requirement, the use of a low resistance

ohm meter (micro-ohm) is necessary.

The commenter has only one low

resistance ohm meter to perform the

measurement of all the airplanes in its

fleet. With only one micro-ohm meter

available, the commenter could inspect

only a limited number of its fleet of

airplanes during its regularly scheduled

maintenance visits, and would not be

able to accomplish the proposed

inspections within the proposed 45-day

compliance time. Further, the

commenter does not believe it should

have to purchase or otherwise obtain

additional units to satisfy the

requirements of the proposed AD.

2. The commenter states that the

actions specified in the service bulletin

could not be accomplished in less than

25 hours and, that based on the amount

of time available for a scheduled

maintenance visit, up to 4 visits may be

required to complete the inspection.

The commenter is concerned about

these additional expenses that would be

associated with this action.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

action, the FAA considered not only the

degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition,

but the normal maintenance schedules

for timely accomplishment of the

actions required by the final rule for all

affected airplanes to continue to operate

without compromising safety. In

consideration of these items, the FAA

has determined that the 45-day

compliance time represents an average

maintenance interval for the affected

fleet, during which time the required

inspections, measurement, repair, and

restoration can reasonably be

accomplished and an acceptable level of

safety can be maintained. However,

under the provisions of paragraph (e) of

the final rule, the FAA may approve

requests for adjustments to the

compliance time if data are submitted to

substantiate that such an adjustment

would provide an acceptable level of

safety.

As for the commenter’s concern

regarding the expenses associated with

accomplishing the requirements of this

AD, the FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions (such as testing

with special equipment) to address

specific unsafe conditions as required in

this rule, they appear to impose costs

that would not otherwise be borne by

operators. Attributing those costs solely

to the issuance of this AD is unrealistic

because, in the interest of maintaining

safe aircraft, prudent operators would

accomplish the required actions in a

timely manner even if they were not

required to do so by the AD.

One commenter requests that a certain

procedure for repairing frayed or broken

harnesses be referenced in the proposed

rule as an acceptable means of repair.

The commenter states that