This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

26696

Vol. 60, No. 96

Thursday, May 18, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 235

[INS No. 1698–95]

RIN 1115–AD98

Preinspection Services for Aircraft,

Vessels, and Trains Outside the United

States

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend

the Immigration and Naturalization

Service’s (the Service) regulations by

expanding the Service’s preinspection

program to permit preinspection of

passengers coming from places other

than foreign contiguous territory and

adjacent islands. This proposed rule

would also permit the preinspection of

railroad passengers. These proposed

actions will facilitate travel to the

United States.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before June 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written

comments, in triplicate, to the Director,

Policy Directives and Instructions

Branch, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 5307,

Washington, DC 20536. To ensure

proper handling please reference INS

number 1698–95 on your

correspondence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Una Brien, Assistant Chief Inspector,

Office of Inspections, 425 I Street, NW.,

Room 7228, Washington, DC 20536,

telephone (202) 514–2681.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preinspection is the procedure whereby

the Service conducts, in the host

country, inspection of passengers and

crewmembers as required by United

States immigration and public health

laws and regulations for entry into the

United States. First established at

Toronto, Canada, in 1952, preinspection

services are currently provided at 10

different sites. However, current

regulations only address preinspection

of aircraft and vessels in contiguous

territory and adjacent islands (8 CFR

part 235.5). This proposed rule would

amend current regulations by allowing

preinspection in any foreign territory,

not just contiguous territory and

adjacent islands. This proposed rule

also provides for the preinspection of

passengers on trains. Since the scope of

this rule is primarily administrative in

nature, and because these proposed

changes will provide a benefit to both

the travelling public and the travel

industry, the Service would like to

implement the program as expeditiously

as possible. Therefore, the comment

period has been limited to 30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, in

accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has

reviewed this regulation and, by

approving it, certifies that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. The Service’s inspection and

examination of persons in order to

determine their admissibility to the

United States is required by statute.

Preinspection provides inspectional

services in foreign airports outside the

United States, is instituted at the request

of the host government, and is

considered a benefit because it

facilitates passengers’ admission into

the United States.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not considered by the

Department of Justice, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),

Regulatory Planning and Review, and

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process under

section 6(a)(3)(A).

Executive Order 12612

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 rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12606

The Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, certifies that

she has assessed this rule in light of the

criteria in Executive Order 12606 and

has determined that this regulation will

not have an impact on family wellbeing.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 235

Administrative practice and

procedures, Air carriers, Aliens,

Immigration, Reporting and record

keeping requirements.

Accordingly, part 235 of chapter I of

title 8 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is proposed to be amended

as follows:

PART 235—INSPECTION OF PERSONS

APPLYING FOR ADMISSION

1. The authority citation for part 235

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1183,

1201, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1252.

2. In § 235.5, paragraph (b) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 235.5 Preinspection.

* * * * *

(b) In Foreign territory. In the case of

any aircraft, vessel, or train proceeding

directly, without stopping, from a port

or place in foreign territory to a Port-ofEntry in the United States, the

examination and inspection of

passengers and crew required by the Act

and final determination of admissibility

may be made immediately prior to such

departure at the port or place in foreign

territory and shall have the same effect

under the Act as though made at the

destined Port-of-Entry in the United

States.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12271 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules 26697

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–71–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 757 Series Airplanes Equipped

with Rolls Royce Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document revises an

earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD), applicable to certain Boeing

Model 757 series airplanes, that would

have required inspection of certain fuse

pins, and replacement of certain fuse

pins with certain other fuse pins. That

proposal was prompted by the

development of new corrosion-resistant

steel fuse pins. This action revises the

proposed rule by including

requirements for inspections of

refinished straight fuse pins, and

replacement of cracked refinished

straight fuse pins with certain other

straight fuse pins. The actions specified

by this proposed AD are intended to

prevent cracking of the midspar fuse

pins, which may lead to separation of

the strut and engine from the wing of

the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

71–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Sumner, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2778;

fax (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 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–71–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–71–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to add an airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 757 series airplanes, was

published as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on August 9, 1994 (59 FR

40488). That NPRM would have

superseded AD 93–16–08, amendment

39–8665 (58 FR 45041, August 26,

1993), to require inspection of straight

fuse pins, replacement of cracked

straight fuse pins with either new 15–

5PH corrosion-resistant steel fuse pins

or like pins, replacement of bulkhead

fuse pins with new 15–5PH corrosionresistant steel fuse pins, and repetitive

inspections of newly installed fuse pins.

Installation of the new 15–5PH

corrosion-resistant steel fuse pins would

allow a longer interval for repetitive

inspection than was previously

provided by AD 93–16–08. That NPRM

was prompted by the development of

new 15–5PH corrosion-resistant steel

fuse pins. Cracking of the midspar fuse

pins, if not detected and corrected in a

timely manner, could result in

separation of the strut and engine from

the wing of the airplane.

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

proposal be revised to include repetitive

inspections of refinished straight fuse

pins. The commenter asserts that these

pins should be inspected repetitively

until cracking is found, at which time

they should be replaced with the new

15–5PH fuse pins. The FAA concurs.

The FAA’s intent was to continue the

requirements of AD 93–16–08 to inspect

repetitively currently installed

refinished straight fuse pins. However,

this requirement was inadvertently

excluded; therefore, a new paragraph (b)

has been added to this supplemental

NPRM.

[All paragraphs subsequent to

paragraph (b) have been redesignated in

this supplemental NPRM to

accommodate the new paragraph (b); see

discussion, above.]

One commenter requests that the

proposed requirement in paragraph (b)

to replace the bulkhead fuse pins within

90 days be extended to 3,000 flight

cycles. The commenter notes that there

have been no reports of cracking or

corrosion on 68 bulkhead fuse pins that

had accumulated between 4,500 and

6,000 flight cycles. Further, the

commenter states that its suggested

3,000-flight cycle compliance time will

not adversely affect safety, since test

results indicate that these fuse pins will

maintain limit load beyond 5,000 flight

cycles after the detection of an initial

crack. Additionally, the commenter

asserts that the fail-safe capability of the

strut on Model 757 series airplanes can

withstand full limit load with a total

failure (i.e., failure of both shear planes)

of the midspar fuse pin. Finally, the

commenter points out that the proposed

90-day compliance time is inconsistent

with that of a similar AD that requires

inspections/replacement of the

bulkhead fuse pins on Model 747 series

airplanes.

The FAA concurs. The FAA has

reviewed the test data submitted by this

commenter and has determined that

extending the compliance time of

paragraph (c) of the supplemental

NPRM to 3,000 flight cycles will not
26698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

adversely affect safety. The FAA finds

that the strut of Model 757 series

airplanes has fail-safe capability and can

withstand full limit load, even with

total failure of a midspar fuse pin.

Since issuance of the proposal, the

FAA has found that the proposed

repetitive inspection interval of 3,000

flight cycles for inspection of the new

15–5PH fuse pins may not coincide with

operators’ regularly scheduled

maintenance visits. The FAA finds that

extending the compliance time by 500

additional flight cycles will not

adversely affect safety, and will allow

the modification to be performed at a

base during regularly scheduled

maintenance where special equipment

and trained maintenance personnel will

be available if necessary. Therefore,

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (d)(1), and (d)(2)(ii)

of the supplemental notice have been

revised to specify a repetitive inspection

interval of 3,500 flight cycles for

inspection of the new 15–5PH

corrosion-resistant steel fuse pins.

Additionally, the newly added

paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this

supplemental NPRM, specifies a

repetitive interval of 3,500 flight cycles

for inspection of refinished straight fuse

pins. [Paragraph (c) of the proposal has

been redesignated as paragraph (d) of

this supplemental NPRM; see

discussion, above.]

Further, since issuance of the

proposal, the FAA has found that

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54A0020,

Revision 5, dated March 17, 1994

(which is referenced in the proposal as

the appropriate source of service

information), does not describe

procedures for eddy current inspections

of the new 15–5PH corrosion-resistant

steel fuse pins. However, that service

bulletin does describe eddy current

inspection procedures for the old style

fuse pins, part number 311N5067–1,

and the FAA finds that these procedures

are also applicable to the new 15–5PH

fuse pins. Therefore, paragraphs

(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(ii) of this

supplemental NPRM have been revised

to reference the procedures described in

the service bulletin to perform the eddy

current inspections of the new 15–5PH

corrosion-resistant steel fuse pins.

The FAA has reviewed and

reconsidered the replacement

requirements that were proposed in the

original NPRM. The FAA finds that

confusion may exist concerning whether

straight fuse pins may be replaced

independently of the other fuse pin on

the same strut when only one fuse pin

is cracked. It is not the FAA’s intent to

require replacement of uncracked fuse

pins. However, the FAA has determined

that it is unacceptable to mix the types

of fuse pins on the same strut, since

double shear load of the fuse pin

depends upon the type of fuse pin.

Therefore, a steel fuse pin having part

number (P/N) 311N5067–1 may not be

installed on the same strut that has a

corrosion-resistant steel (CRES) fuse pin

having P/N 311N5217–1 installed on

that strut. However, each strut must

have fuse pins of the same type, which

may differ from fuse pins on another

strut. A new paragraph (e) has been

added to this supplemental notice to

clarify the proposed replacement

requirement.

The FAA has recently reviewed the

figures it has used over the past several

years in calculating the economic

impact of AD activity. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA has

determined that it is necessary to

increase the labor rate used in these

calculations from $55 per work hour to

$60 per work hour. The economic

impact information, below, has been

revised to reflect this increase in the

specified hourly labor rate.

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 supplemental

notice to clarify this long-standing

requirement.

Since these changes expand the scope

of the originally proposed rule, the FAA

has determined that it is necessary to

reopen the comment period to provide

additional opportunity for public

comment.

There are approximately 306 Model

757 series airplanes equipped with Rolls

Royce engines of the affected design in

the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates

that 119 airplanes of U.S. registry would

be affected by this proposed AD.

The inspections that were previously

required by AD 93–16–08, and retained

in this supplemental proposal take

approximately 8 work hours per fuse

pin at an average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. There are 4 fuse pins per

airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of these inspections on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$228,480, or $1,920 per airplane, per

cycle. However, since the integrity and

strength of the new steel fuse pins

permit longer inspection intervals, the

cost impact for these inspections would

actually be lessened because the

proposed inspections are not required to

be performed as frequently as currently

required by AD 93–16–08.

The proposed replacement would take

approximately 56 work hours per fuse

pin at an average labor rate of $60 per

work hour. Required parts would be

provided by the manufacturer at no cost

to the operator. Based on these figures,

the total cost impact of the proposed

replacement on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1,599,360, or $13,440

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 FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, most

prudent operators would accomplish

the required actions even if they were

not required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this proposed

AD. As a matter of law, in order to be

airworthy, an aircraft must conform to

its type design and be in a condition for

safe operation. The type design is

approved only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

proposed AD, makes a finding of an

unsafe condition, this means that this

cost-beneficial level of safety is no

longer being achieved and that the

proposed actions are necessary to

restore that level of safety. Because this

level of safety has already been

determined to be cost-beneficial, a full
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules 26699

cost-benefit analysis for this proposed

AD would be redundant and

unnecessary.

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

removing amendment 39–8665 (58 FR

45041, August 26, 1993), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Boeing: Docket 94–NM–71–AD. Supersedes

AD 93–16–08, Amendment 39–8665.

Applicability: Model 757 series airplanes

equipped with Rolls Royce engines,

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 (f) 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.

Note 2: Inspections accomplished prior to

the effective date of this amendment in

accordance with the procedures described in

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54A0020,

Revision 4, dated May 27, 1993; Revision 3,

dated March 26, 1992; or Revision 2, dated

October 31, 1991; are considered acceptable

for compliance with the applicable

inspection specified in this amendment.

To prevent cracking of the midspar fuse

pins, which may lead to separation of the

strut and engine from the wing of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes equipped with straight

fuse pins, part number (P/N) 311N5067–1:

Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total flight

cycles on the straight fuse pin, perform an

eddy current inspection to detect cracking in

those fuse pins, in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 757–54A0020, Revision 5,

dated March 17, 1994.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 1,500 flight cycles on the straight fuse

pin.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, accomplish the requirements of

either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this

AD.

(i) Replace the cracked straight fuse pin

with a new straight fuse pin, P/N 311N5067–

1, and prior to the accumulation of 5,000

total flight cycles on the newly installed

straight fuse pin, perform an eddy current

inspection, in accordance with the service

bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles on

the newly installed straight fuse pin. Or

(ii) Replace the cracked straight fuse pin

with a new 15–5PH fuse pin, P/N 311N5217–

1, and prior to the accumulation of 14,000

total flight cycles on the newly installed 15–

5PH fuse pin, perform an eddy current

inspection to detect cracking in the newly

installed pin, in accordance with the

procedures described in the service bulletin.

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 3,500 flight cycles on the newly

installed fuse pin.

(b) For airplanes equipped with refinished

straight fuse pins, P/N 311N5067–1: Perform

an eddy current inspection to detect cracking

in those fuse pins at intervals not to exceed

1,500 flight cycles on the refinished fuse

pins, in accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin 757–54A0020, Revision 5, dated

March 17, 1994.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 1,500 flight cycles on the refinished

straight fuse pin.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), or (b)(2)(iii) of

this AD, in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(i) Replace the cracked refinished straight

fuse pin with a crack-free refinished straight

fuse pin, P/N 311N5067–1, and perform an

eddy current inspection to detect cracking in

the refinished straight fuse pin at intervals

not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles, in

accordance with the procedures described in

the service bulletin. Or

(ii) Replace the cracked refinished straight

fuse pin with a new straight fuse pin, P/N

311N5067–1, and prior to the accumulation

of 5,000 total flight cycles on the newly

installed straight fuse pin, perform an eddy

current inspection, in accordance with the

service bulletin. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500

flight cycles on the newly installed straight

fuse pin. Or

(iii) Replace the cracked refinished straight

fuse pin with a new 15–5PH fuse pin, P/N

311N5217–1, and prior to the accumulation

of 14,000 total flight cycles on the newly

installed 15–5PH fuse pin, perform an eddy

current inspection to detect cracking in the

newly installed pin, in accordance with the

procedures described in the service bulletin.

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 3,500 flight cycles on the newly

installed fuse pin.

(c) For airplanes equipped with bulkhead

fuse pins, P/N 311N5211–1: Within 3,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, replace the bulkhead fuse pins with 15–

5PH fuse pins, P/N 311N5217–1, in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

757–54A0020, Revision 5, dated March 17,

1994, and accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (d) of this AD.

(d) For airplanes equipped with 15–5PH

fuse pins: Prior to the accumulation of 14,000

total flight cycles on the 15–5PH fuse pins,

perform an eddy current inspection to detect

cracking in those fuse pins, in accordance

with the procedures described in Boeing

Service Bulletin 757–54A0020, Revision 5,

dated March 17, 1994.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 3,500 flight cycles on the fuse pin.

(2) If any cracking is detected, accomplish

the requirements of paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and

(d)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Prior to further flight, replace any

cracked 15–5PH fuse pin with a new 15–5PH

fuse pin, P/N 311N5217–1, in accordance

with the procedures described in the service

bulletin. And

(ii) Prior to the accumulation of 14,000

total flight cycles on the newly installed 15–

5PH fuse pin, perform an eddy current

inspection to detect cracking in the newly

installed pin, in accordance with the

procedures described in the service bulletin.

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 3,500 flight cycles on the newly

installed fuse pin.

(e) Fuse pins must be of the same type on

the same strut. For example, a steel fuse pin
26700 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

having P/N 311N5067–1 may not be installed

on the same strut that has a corrosionresistant steel (CRES) fuse pin having P/N

311N5217–1 installed on that strut. However,

fuse pins on one strut may differ from those

on another strut, provided the fuse pins are

not of mixed types on the same strut.

(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, 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(g) 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 May 12,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12207 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–18–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Model CL–600–1A11 (CL–600), CL–

600–2A12 (CL–601), CL–600–2B16 (CL–

601–3A and –3R), and CL–600–2B19

(Regional Jet Series 100) Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Bombardier Model CL–600–1A11, CL–

600–2A12, CL–600–2B16, and CL–600–

2B19 series airplanes, that currently

requires an inspection to detect cracking

in the rudder control quadrant;

replacement of any cracked quadrant

with a new assembly; and retorquing of

the castellated nut, as necessary. This

action would require a follow-on

inspection of certain rudder control

quadrants to detect cracks that start at

the inside root radius of the spigot;

modification of any cracked quadrant;

and eventual modification of certain

quadrants. This action also would add

airplanes to the applicability of the

existing AD. This proposal is prompted

by the development of a modification,

which, when installed, will positively

address the identified unsafe condition.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent loss of

rudder control due to stress corrosion of

the rudder control quadrant.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

18–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

Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box

6087, Station Centre-ville, Quebec H3C

3G9, Canada. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Franco Pieri, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANE–172, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,

New York 11581; telephone (516) 256–

7526; fax (516) 568–2716.

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–18–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–18–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On November 1, 1993, the FAA issued

AD 93–22–04, amendment 39–8729 (58

FR 59161, November 8, 1993), which is

applicable to certain Bombardier Model

CL–600–1A11 (CL–600), CL–600–2A12

(CL–601), CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A

and –3R), and CL–600–2B19 (Regional

Jet Series 100) series airplanes. That AD

requires a one-time ultrasonic or

fluorescent penetrant inspection to

detect cracking in the rudder control

quadrant; replacement of any cracked

quadrant with a new assembly; and

retorquing of the castellated nut, as

necessary. That action was prompted by

a report of an in-flight failure of a

rudder control quadrant, which resulted

from stress corrosion. The requirements

of that AD are intended to prevent loss

of rudder control.

In the preamble to AD 93–22–04, the

FAA indicated that it considered that

AD to be interim action, and that further

rulemaking action would be considered

once final action was identified.

Bombardier has now developed a

modification that will positively address

the unsafe condition described in the

AD by providing better resistance of the

rudder quadrant against stress

corrosion.

Bombardier has issued the following

service bulletins, which describe

procedures for a one-time ultrasonic

inspection of certain rudder control

quadrants to detect cracks that start at

the inside root radius of the spigot, and

modification of any cracked quadrant.

1. Canadair Challenger Service

Bulletin No. 600–0637, Revision 1,

dated November 15, 1994 (for Model

CL–600–1A11 series airplanes);

2. Canadair Challenger Service

Bulletin No. 601–0426, Revision 1,

dated November 15, 1994 (for Model

CL–600–2A12 and –2B16 series

airplanes); and