Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20461

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:

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Limited,

Avro International Aerospace Division

(Formerly British Aerospace, plc; British

Aerospace Commercial Aircraft

Limited): Docket 95–NM–27–AD.

Applicability: Model BAe 146–00A, –200A,

and –300A airplanes, as listed in British

Aerospace Service Bulletin SB.27–77–

00955A&C, Revision 2, dated March 10,

1989, 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 uncommanded descend of the

airplane and reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, modify the elevator control

system of the flight controls in accordance

with British Aerospace Service Bulletin

SB.27–77–00955A&C, Revision 2, dated

March 10, 1989.

(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–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. 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 20,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10200 Filed 4–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–161–D]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace BAC 1–11–200 and –400

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

British Aerospace BAC 1–11–200 and

–400 series airplanes. This proposal

would require repetitive radiographic

inspections to detect corrosion of the

center torque shaft of the wing spoiler,

and replacement, if necessary. This

proposal is prompted by a report of the

wing spoiler failing to retract fully after

deployment, which caused the wing to

drop significantly. Subsequent

investigation revealed that the torque

shaft assembly of the wing spoiler had

failed, due to severe corrosion. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent such failures,

which can result in an adverse effect on

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

161–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

British Aerospace, Airbus Limited, P.O.

Box 77, Bristol BS99 7AR, England. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

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 shall

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

summarizing 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 Number 94–NM–161–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, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–NM–161–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.
20462 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on all British Aerospace Model

BAC 1–11–200 and –400 series

airplanes. The CAA advises that it has

received a report of a failure of a wing

spoiler on one airplane to retract fully

after deployment. This failure caused

the airplane wing to drop significantly.

Subsequent investigation revealed that

the center torque shaft of the wing

spoiler had failed due to severe

corrosion present on the internal surface

of the shaft assembly. Such corrosion, if

not detected and corrected in a timely

manner, could cause the torque shaft to

fail and, consequently, cause the

airplane wing to drop significantly; this

would result in an adverse effect on

controllability of the airplane.

British Aerospace has issued Alert

Service Bulletin 27–A–PM6007, Issue 1,

dated April 10, 1992, which describes

procedures for accomplishing repetitive

radiographic inspections for corrosion

of the center torque shaft of the spoiler

on the left and right wing, and

replacement of the shaft assembly, if

necessary. The CAA classified this

service bulletin as mandatory in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in the United Kingdom.

This airplane model is manufactured

in the United Kingdom and is type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of § 21.29 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the CAA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the CAA,

reviewed all available information, and

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, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of repetitive

radiographic inspections to detect

corrosion of the center torque shaft of

the wing spoiler, and replacement of the

torque shaft assembly, if necessary. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(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 requirement.

The FAA estimates that 31 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 40 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 $74,400, or $2,400 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the replacement of the

torque shaft assembly, it would take

approximately 40 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$2,950 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of any

necessary replacement action is

estimated to be $5,350 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:

British Aerospace Airbus Limited (Formerly

British Aerospace Commercial Aircraft

Limited, British Aerospace Aircraft

Group): Docket 94–NM–161–AD.

Applicability: All Model BAC 1–11–200

and –400 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 (d) 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 failure of the center torque shaft

of the spoiler on the left and right wing,

accomplish the following:

(a) Perform a radiographic inspection to

detect internal corrosion of the center torque

shaft on the left and right wing spoilers, in

accordance with the Accomplishment

Instructions of British Aerospace BAC 1–11
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20463

Alert Service Bulletin 27–A–PM6007, Issue

1, dated April 10, 1992, at the time specified

in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as

applicable. If the date of installation of a

center torque shaft cannot be determined, the

radiographic inspection of that shaft must be

accomplished within 9 months after the

effective date of this AD.

(1) For the center torque shaft on the left

wing spoiler: Inspect within 10 years after

the date of installation of that center torque

shaft, or within 9 months after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2) For the center torque shaft on the right

wing spoiler: Inspect within 10 years after

the date of installation of that center torque

shaft, or within 9 months after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(b) If no internal corrosion is detected,

repeat the radiographic inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 4 years.

(c) If any internal surface corrosion is

detected, prior to further flight, replace that

shaft assembly with either a used serviceable

assembly or a new assembly, in accordance

with British Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin

27–A–PM6007, Issue 1, dated April 10, 1992.

Perform the radiographic inspection in

accordance with that service bulletin at the

applicable time specified in paragraph (c)(1)

or (c)(2) of this AD.

(1) If a new shaft assembly is installed:

Perform the inspection within 10 years after

installation. Thereafter, repeat the inspection

at intervals not to exceed 4 years.

(2) If a used serviceable shaft is installed:

Prior to installation, perform an initial

radiographic inspection of that shaft in

accordance with the service bulletin.

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals

not to exceed 4 years.

(d) 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–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. 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.

(e) 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 20,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10202 Filed 4–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

19 CFR Part 210

Notice of Commission Decision Not To

Proceed With Proposed Rulemaking

Concerning Voting Procedures in

Investigations and Related

Proceedings on Unfair Practices in

Import Trade

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice that a proposed

rulemaking will not proceed.

SUMMARY: The Commission will not

proceed at this time with the proposed

amendment of certain final rules for

investigations and related proceedings

under section 337 of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). The proposed

amendments were intended to do the

following: (1) Increase the number of

votes required for the Commission to

review an initial determination (ID) on

a matter other than temporary relief or

grant a request for oral argument in

connection with such a review; and (2)

prescribe the effect of a tie vote

concerning post-review disposition of

an ID on a matter other than temporary

relief.

DATES: April 26, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P.

N. Smithey, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, telephone 202–205–3061.

Hearing-impaired individuals can

obtain information concerning the

proposed rulemaking by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal at 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 19, 1995, the Commission

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking for the final rules

to be codified in 19 CFR part 210

concerning investigations and related

proceedings under section 337 of the

Tariff Act. 60 FR 3785 (Jan. 19, 1995).

The notice solicited written comments

on whether the Commission should do

the following:

1. Amend final rule 210.43(d)(3) to provide

that the Commission will review an ID on a

matter other than temporary relief when at

least one-half of the participating

Commissioners vote in favor of a review;

2. Amend final rule 210.45(a) to provide

that the Commission will grant a request for

oral argument in connection with review of

an ID on a matter other than temporary relief

when at least one-half of the participating

Commissioners vote in favor of such

argument; and/or

3. Amend final rule 210.45(c), without

statutory changes, to state what effect a tievote will have on the Commission’s

disposition of an ID on a matter other than

temporary relief—e.g., that a tie vote on the

disposition of an ID after a review will

constitute an affirmance of the ID.

Comments were filed by the American

Bar Association’s Section of

International Law and Practice, the

Customs and International Trade Bar

Association, and the International Trade

Commission Trial Lawyers Association.

For the most part, the commenters

advocated alternative amendments or

retention of the existing rule or practice

in response to the questions of whether

the Commission should amend rules

210.43(d) and 210.45(a) as described in

the advance notice. The commenters

that addressed final rule 210.45(c) were

evenly divided on whether the

Commission should amend that rule as

described in the advance notice.

A majority of the Commission has

determined not to proceed with the

proposed amendment of final rules

210.43(d) and 210.45(a) at this time. A

majority of the Commission also has

determined not to proceed with the

proposed amendment of final rule

210.45(c) at this time.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–10257 Filed 4–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD01–95–036]

Special Local Regulation: Whatever

Festival Hydroplanes, Kennebec River,

Augusta, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish a permanent special local

regulation for a racing event called the

Whatever Festival Hydroplanes. The

race will be held on Saturday, June 24,

and Sunday, June 25, 1995, and

thereafter annually on the fourth

weekend in June in the waters of the

Kennebec River, Augusta, ME. This

regulation is needed to protect the

boating public from the hazards

associated with high speed hydroplane

racing in confined waters.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Commander(b), First Coast