Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22013

accumulation of 21,600 flight cycles, perform

an HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the aft

spar web of the wings, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059,

dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,700

flight cycles.

(e) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, repair the crack in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213,

dated August 12, 1994, or Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–57–6059, dated August 12,

1994, as applicable; or in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(f) 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.

(g) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10988 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–31–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Beech Model

400 and 400A 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

certain Beech Model 400 and 400A

airplanes. This proposal would require

modification of the autopilot and rudder

boost interlock. This proposal is

prompted by a report indicating that the

rudder boost system installed on these

airplanes does not operate correctly

during deployment of a thrust reverser.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent incorrect

operation of the rudder boost system

during deployment of a thrust reverser

and to prevent the autopilot from

exceeding certain bank angle limits;

these conditions could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

31–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

Beech Aircraft Corporation, Commercial

Service Department, P.O. Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale

Vassalli, Aerospace Engineer, Systems

and Equipment Branch, ACE–130W,

FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification

Office, Small Airplane Directorate, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone (316) 946–4132; fax (316)

946–4407.

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 95–NM–31–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.

95–NM–31–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA received a report from the

airplane manufacturer indicating that,

during ground operation, the rudder

boost system installed on Beech Model

400 and 400A airplanes is disabled only

when the left thrust reverser is

deployed. Operation of either the right

or left thrust reverser during ground

operation should disable the rudder

boost system. Additionally, during

flight, the rudder boost system on these

airplanes is disabled when inadvertent

deployment of the left thrust reverser

occurs. However, inadvertent

deployment of a thrust reverser should

not disable the rudder boost system.

The FAA also discovered that, when

landing the airplane with a failed left

engine, use of the right thrust reverser

will result in a rudder boost in the

wrong direction. (When landing with a

failed right engine, use of the left thrust

reverser will disable the rudder boost

system, as it should.) Further,

inadvertent deployment of the left

thrust reverser will result in

disengagement of the rudder boost

system. Should this condition occur

during takeoff, rudder forces could

exceed the limits specified in the

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

These conditions, if not corrected,

could result in reduced controllability

of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2533,

dated October 1994, which describes

procedures for modification of the

autopilot and rudder boost interlock.

The modification entails installing an

autopilot and rudder boost

improvement kit. Installation of the kit

will disable the rudder boost feature

during operation of the thrust reverser

with only one engine operating in order

to alleviate control input requirements.

In addition, the service bulletin

describes removal of a placard if one
22014 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

was installed in accordance with

Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2502,

dated May 1993.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require modification of the autopilot

and rudder boost interlock. 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 long-standing requirement.

There are approximately 92 Model

400 and 400A airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 69 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 24 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would be provided by the manufacturer

at no cost to operators. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $99,360, or $1,440 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:

Beech Aircraft Corporation: Docket 95–NM–

31–AD.

Applicability: Model 400 airplanes, serial

RJ–61; and Model 400A airplanes, serials

RK–1 through RK–77 inclusive, and RK–79

through RK–92 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 reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) At the next scheduled inspection, but

no later than 200 hours time-in-service after

the effective date of this AD, install an

autopilot and rudder boost improvement kit

in accordance with Beechcraft Service

Bulletin No. 2533, dated October 1994.

(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, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small 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,

Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita 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. Issued in Renton,

Washington, on April 28, 1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10989 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–95–009]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Connecticut River, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

a change to the regulations for the Route

82 Bridge at mile 16.8 over the

Connecticut River, between East

Haddam and Haddam, Connecticut.

This proposal would provide openings

for recreational vessels only on the hour

and half-hour from 15 May through 31

October, between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.

Commercial vessels would continue to

be granted bridge openings at all times.

This action should ease traffic delays

and still meet the reasonable needs of

navigation.

This proposal would also require

bridge owners to install clearance

gauges at the AMTRAK Old SaybrookOld Lyme Bridge, the CONRAIL

Middletown-Portland Bridge and the

Route 82 Bridge to assist mariners in