21056 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Boeing: Docket 95–NM–26–AD.

Applicability: Model 757 series airplanes

having line positions 1 through 650

inclusive, and equipped with Sundstrand

ram air turbine (RAT)/hydraulic pumps

having part number (P/N) 730814 series,

serial numbers 0001 through 0735 inclusive;

and Model 767 series airplanes having line

positions 1 through 565 inclusive, and

equipped with Sundstrand RAT/hydraulic

pumps having P/N 729548 series, serial

numbers 0001 through 0620 inclusive;

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

cracking of the hydraulic pressure transfer

tube of the ram air turbine (RAT), which

could result in the loss of all center systems

hydraulic fluid and the inability of the RAT

to pressurize the center hydraulic system,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, replace the hydraulic

pressure transfer tube of the RAT system

with a new hose assembly, in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–

29A0046, dated October 6, 1994 (for Model

757 series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 767–29A0077, dated October 6, 1994

(for Model 767 series airplanes), as

applicable.

Note 2: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–

29A0046 references Sundstrand Service

Bulletin 730814–29–11, dated November 3,

1994; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

29A0077 references Sundstrand Service

Bulletin 729548–29–14, dated November 3,

1994; as additional sources of service

information for procedures to replace the

pressure tube.

Note 3: Modification of the hydraulic

pressure transfer tube of the RAT system in

accordance with Sundstrand Service Bulletin

730814–29–9, Revision 1, dated November 3,

1994 (for Model 757 series airplanes); or

Sundstrand Service Bulletin 729548–29–12,

Revision 2, dated November 3, 1994 (for

Model 767 series airplanes); is considered

acceptable for compliance with the

modification requirements of paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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, Seattle ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(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 25,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10585 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–111–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model Viscount Model 744,

745D, and 810 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 Model Viscount

Model 744, 745D, and 810 airplanes.

This proposal would require inspections

to detect cracking of certain fittings of

the tailplane spar, and replacement of

the fittings with serviceable parts, if

necessary. This proposal is prompted by

reports of fatigue cracking of certain

fittings in the tailplane spar. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent such cracking,

which could result in structural

degradation of the attachment of the

horizontal stabilizer to the fuselage.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

111–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 Regional Aircraft Ltd.,

Engineering Support Manager, Military

Business Unit, Chadderton Works,

Greengate, Middleton, Manchester M24

1SA, 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–111–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–111–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21057

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

Viscount Model 744, 745D, and 810

airplanes. The CAA advises that it has

received reports of fatigue cracking of

certain attach fittings of the tailplane

spar on these airplanes. The cracking

was found in the top fitting of the

tailplane spar at the junction of the

chamfer and the innermost hole of the

bolt group through the top flange. Such

fatigue cracking, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could

result in structural degradation of the

attachment of the horizontal stabilizer to

the fuselage.

British Aerospace has issued Alert

Preliminary Technical Leaflet (PTL)

264, Issue 3, dated September 1, 1992

(for Model Viscount 744 and 745D

airplanes), and Alert PTL 127, Issue 3,

dated June 1, 1992 (for Model Viscount

810 airplanes). These Alert PTL’s

describe procedures for performing

repetitive high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) inspections to detect cracking of

the bolt holes on the top fittings of the

tailplane spar, and replacement of

cracked fittings with serviceable parts.

The CAA classified these Alert PTL’s as

mandatory in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in the United Kingdom.

These airplane models are

manufactured in the United Kingdom

and are 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

repetitive HFEC inspections to detect

cracking of certain fittings of the

tailplane spar, and replacement of the

fittings with serviceable parts, if

necessary. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the Alert PTL’s

described previously.

Operators should note that the

proposed compliance time for the initial

inspection of the fittings on Model

Viscount 810 airplanes is shorter than

that proposed for the Model Viscount

744 and 745D airplanes because the

fittings on Model Viscount 810

airplanes are of a different

configuration. The fittings on Model

Viscount 810 airplanes are loaded to

higher stress levels, which makes them

more susceptible to fatigue cracking

than the fittings on the Model Viscount

744 and 745D airplanes.

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 long-standing requirement.

The FAA estimates that 29 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 4 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 $6,960, or $240 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 Regional Aircraft Limited

(Formerly British Aerospace

Commercial Aircraft Limited, VickersArmstrongs Aircraft Limited): Docket

94–M–111–AD.

Applicability: All Model Viscount 744,

745D, and 810 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.
21058 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules

To prevent structural degradation of the

attachment of the horizontal stabilizer to the

fuselage, accomplish the following:

(a) For Model Viscount 744 and 745D

airplanes: Within 3,000 landings or 3 years

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, perform a high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking

of the bolt holes on the top fittings of the root

joint of the tailplane spar, in accordance with

British Aerospace Alert Preliminary

Technical Leaflet (PTL) 264, Issue 3, dated

September 1, 1992. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000

landings or 3 years, whichever occurs first.

(b) For Model Viscount 810 airplanes:

Within 1,000 landings or 1 year after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first, perform an HFEC inspection to detect

cracking of the bolt holes on the top fittings

of the root joint of the tailplane spar, in

accordance with British Aerospace Alert PTL

127, Issue 3, dated June 1, 1992. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 3,000 landings or 3 years, whichever

occurs first.

(c) If any cracking is found during the

inspections required by paragraph (a) or (b)

of this AD, prior to further flight, replace the

cracked fitting with a serviceable part, in

accordance with British Aerospace Alert PTL

264, Issue 3, dated September 1, 1992 (for

Model 744 and 745D airplanes), or Alert PTL

127, Issue 3, dated June 1, 1992 (for Model

810 airplanes); as applicable.

(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 25,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10587 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing

24 CFR Ch. IX

[Docket No. N–95–3858; FR–3647–N–04]

RIN 2577–AB44

Vacancy Rule: Notice of Cancellation

of Third Meeting of Negotiated

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of

meeting.

SUMMARY: The Department has

established a Negotiated Rulemaking

Advisory Committee to discuss and

negotiate a proposed rule that would

change the current method of

determining the payment of operating

subsidies to vacant public housing

units. The Committee met in March and

April 1995, after publishing notices of

these meetings. This notice announces

that a third meeting that had been

scheduled for May 2 and 3, 1995, has

been cancelled, pending a

determination by the Committee of

whether an additional meeting is

necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John T. Comerford, Director, Financial

Management Division, Public and

Indian Housing, Room 4212,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 431 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20410–0500; telephone

(202) 708–1872, or (202) 708–0850

(TDD). (These telephone numbers are

not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 24, 1995 (60 FR 10339),

the Department published a notice of

establishment of a Negotiated

Rulemaking Advisory Committee to

discuss and negotiate a proposed rule

that would change the current method

of determining the payment of operating

subsidies to vacant public housing

units. The February 24 notice also

announced the first meeting of this

committee, which was held on March

7–9, 1995, in Washington, DC.

On March 20, 1995 (60 FR 14707), the

Department published a notice of the

second and third meetings of the

committee, to be held in April and May

1995. The second meeting was held on

April 4 and 5, 1995, as scheduled;

however, at the April meeting the

committee determined that it would not

meet on the dates announced for May

1995. If an additional meeting is

necessary to ensure consensus by the

committee, an announcement of the

rescheduled meeting will be published

in the Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437g, 3635(d).

Dated: April 26, 1995.

Joseph Shuldiner,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing.

[FR Doc. 95–10666 Filed 4–27–95; 9:26 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–M

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2200

Rules of Procedure

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Review Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission proposes to

revise its rules governing simplified

proceedings and to institute a pilot E–

Z Trial program. This program would be

instituted on a limited basis for a one

year trial period. After the trial period,

the Commission would evaluate the

results and determine whether it should

continue the E–Z Trial program and, if

so, what modifications should be made.

As the name implies, E–Z Trial would

simplify and accelerate the adjudicative

process for cases that warrant a less

formal, less expensive process. The

most significant change to the rules

would strengthen the role of

Commission judges in determining

whether a case is tried under simplified

proceedings. The Commission has

concluded that the current

underutilization of simplified

proceedings could be remedied through

a mechanism by which the Chief

Administrative Law Judge or the judge

assigned to an individual case could

unilaterally direct that a case be tried

under simplified proceedings. Thus,

under the E–Z Trial program, the

Commission’s Chief Judge would have

the authority to determine whether a

case would proceed by either

conventional proceedings or the E–Z

Trial program. This should result in

greater use of simplified proceedings

while preserving the use of

conventional proceedings where

needed. E–Z Trial should reduce the

time and expense of litigation in such

cases. However, the presiding judge may

discontinue E–Z Trial proceedings and

reinstate conventional procedures if the