34802 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—TEMPORARY REVISIONS

Model/series Engine TR No. Date

A300 .......................................... GE CF6–50C 4.02.00/08 April 25, 2001.

A300 .......................................... GE CF6–50C2/C2R 4.02.00/09 April 26, 2001.

A300–600 .................................. GE CF6–80C2 4.02.00/11 March 21, 2000.

A300–600 .................................. PW 4000 4.02.00/13 March 28, 2000.

A310 .......................................... GE CF6–80A3 4.02.00/11 March 21, 2000.

A310 .......................................... GE CF6–80C2 4.02.00/12 March 22, 2000.

A310 .......................................... PW JT9D–7R4 4.02.00/13 March 23, 2000.

A310 .......................................... PW 4000 4.02.00/14 March 24, 2000.

(c) When the information in the applicable

TR listed in Table 1 of this AD has been

incorporated into the FAA-approved general

revisions of the AFM, the general revisions

may be incorporated into the AFM, and the

TR may be removed from the AFM.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Operations

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 1: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(e) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(f) The AFM revision required by

paragraph (b) of this AD shall be done in

accordance with A300 Flight Manual

Temporary Revision 4.02.00/08, dated April

25, 2001; A300 Flight Manual Temporary

Revision 4.02.00/09, dated April 26, 2001;

A300–600 Flight Manual Temporary

Revision 4.02.00/11, dated March 21, 2000;

A300–600 Flight Manual Temporary

Revision 4.02.00/13, dated March 28, 2000;

A310 Flight Manual Temporary Revision

4.02.00/11, dated March 21, 2000; A310

Flight Manual Temporary Revision 4.02.00/

12, dated March 22, 2000; A310 Flight

Manual Temporary Revision 4.02.00/13,

dated March 23, 2000; and A310 Flight

Manual Temporary Revision 4.02.00/14,

dated March 24, 2000; as applicable. (Only

page 2 of each Temporary Revision contains

the document date; no other page of these

documents contains this information.) This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 2001–

129(B), dated April 4, 2001.

Effective Date

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

July 17, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21,

2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–16199 Filed 6–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–09–AD; Amendment

39–12300; AD 2001–13–18]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company Beech Models 45

(YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45

(T–34B) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99–12–02,

which currently requires flight and

operating limitations on Raytheon

Aircraft Corporation (Raytheon) Beech

Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45),

and D45 (T–34B) airplanes. AD 99–12–

02 resulted from a report of an in-flight

separation of the right wing on a

Raytheon Beech Model A45 (T–34A)

airplane. The AD was issued as an

interim action until the development of

FAA-approved inspection procedures.

Raytheon has developed procedures to

inspect the wing spar assemblies of the

above-referenced airplanes. This AD

requires repetitive inspections of the

wing spar assembly for cracks with

replacement of any wing spar assembly

found cracked (unless the spar assembly

has a crack indication in the filler strip

where the direction of the crack is

toward the outside edge of the filler

strip). This AD also includes a reporting

requirement of the results of the initial

inspection and maintains the flight and

operating restrictions required by AD

99–12–02 until accomplishment of the

initial inspection. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to prevent wing

spar failure caused by fatigue cracks in

the wing spar assemblies and ensure the

operational safety of the abovereferenced airplanes.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

August 16, 2001.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulations as of August 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service

information referenced in this AD from

Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box

85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085;

telephone: (800) 625–7043 or (316) 676–

4556. You may examine this

information at FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–

09–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4125; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

Has FAA taken any action to this

point? In-flight separation of the right

wing on a Raytheon Beech Model A45

(T34A) airplane caused FAA to issue

AD 99–12–02, Amendment 39–11193

(64 FR 31689, June 14, 1999). This AD

requires:

—Incorporating flight and operating

limitations that restrict the airplanes

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34803

to normal category operation and

prohibit them from acrobatic and

utility category operations;

—Limiting the flight load factor to 0 to

2.5 G; and

—Limiting the maximum airspeed to

175 miles per hour (mph) (152 knots).

AD 99–12–02 was issued as an

interim action until the development of

FAA-approved inspection procedures.

What has happened since AD 99–12–

02 to initiate this action? Raytheon has

developed procedures to inspect the

wing spar assemblies on Raytheon

Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A,

B–45), and D45 (T–34B) airplanes. We

have reviewed and approved the

technical aspects of these procedures.

To address this issue, FAA issued a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

to supersede AD 99–12–02. This NPRM

was published in the Federal Register

on May 5, 2000 (65 FR 26149). The

NPRM proposed to supersede AD 99–

12–02 with a new AD that would

require:

—Repetitively inspecting the wing spar

assemblies for cracks and replacing

any cracked wing spar assembly. A

crack indication in the filler strip is

allowed if the direction of the crack

is toward the outside edge of the filler

strip;

—Reporting the results of the initial

inspection; and

—Maintaining the flight and operating

restrictions that AD 99–12–02

currently requires until

accomplishing the initial inspection

and possible replacement proposed in

this AD.

The flight and operating restrictions

that AD 99–12–02 currently requires

may be changed after inspection of the

wing spar assemblies, and the wing spar

assembly either is replaced, is crack

free, or only has a crack indication in

the filler strip where the direction of the

crack is toward the outside edge of the

filler strip.

Was the public invited to comment?

The FAA encouraged interested persons

to participate in the making of this

amendment. At the request of several

commenters, we issued an NPRM to

extend the comment period from July 7,

2000, to October 15, 2000. This

document was published in the Federal

Register on July 5, 2000 (65 FR 41381).

A summary of the comments received

on both of these documents follow,

along with our responses.

Comment Issue No. 1: Incorporate

Alternative Methods of Compliance

Into the Final Rule AD Action

What is the commenters’ concern?

The FAA received brief summaries of

two requests for alternative methods of

compliance to the actions in the

proposed AD. Several commenters

request that we incorporate each of

these alternative methods of compliance

into the final rule as a compliance

option to the AD. A brief description of

each alternative method of compliance

follows:

—A proposal from the T–34 Technical

Committee consists of accomplishing

Raytheon SB 57–3329 as a one-time

action (as long as no cracks are found)

and cold working the boltholes. This

would allow the airplanes to be

operated at their original operating

criteria; and

—A proposal from the T–34 Association

consists of complying with parts of

Raytheon SB 57–3329 and replacing

the front spars with spars from Baron

(55 and 58 series) airplanes as

terminating action.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? The brief summaries of these

alternative methods of compliance do

not contain sufficient data for us to

consider them to provide an acceptable

level of safety at the present time. If and

when each of these groups submits the

appropriate documentation, we will

evaluate each proposal to see if it meets

the safety intent of the AD. We will then

approve any proposal that meets this

criteria as an AMOC to the AD.

We are not changing the final rule as

a result of these comments.

Comment Issue No. 2: Extend the

Comment Period a Second Time

What is the commenters’ concern?

Several commenters request an

extension to the comment period in

order to have more time to finalize

alternative methods of compliance.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? As discussed previously, FAA

extended the comment period to give

the public an additional 60 days to

respond. The comment period on the

extension ended October 15, 2000. We

have accepted late comments since that

time. We have determined that the

safety of the affected airplanes

outweighs the necessity for waiting any

longer for the completion of alternative

methods of compliance, especially in

light that it has been over 6 months

since the comment period for the

extension ended.

We are not changing the final rule as

a result of these comments.

Comment Issue No. 3: Allow the

Operating Restrictions and Limitations

Required by AD 99–12–02 Instead of the

Proposed Repetitive Inspections

What is the commenters’ concern?

Several commenters request that they be

allowed to continue to implement the

operating restrictions and limitations

that are currently required by AD 99–

12–02 rather than be required to

accomplish the proposed repetitive

inspections. These commenters state

that the fastener removal process could

cause more damage to the spars and the

bolthole eddy current inspection

method is subjective. For example, the

commenters reference a recent

inspection on 5 of the affected airplanes

where the eddy current inspection

revealed cracks in the front spar.

According to the commenter, Raytheon

then validated the inspection results

and found no cracks in the front spars.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? The FAA does not concur that

the implementation of the flight and

operating restrictions that are currently

required by AD 99–12–02 should be an

option to accomplishing this AD. We

recognize that the fastener removal

process could cause damage to the

spars. However, the safety implications

of allowing an airplane to continue

operation with a cracked spar far

outweigh the possible damage the

fastener removal process could cause.

We established the current flight

restrictions that AD 99–12–02 requires

as a temporary safety solution until

procedures were developed that could

determine the condition of the wing

spar assemblies of the affected

airplanes. Once a crack develops, it can

continue to grow through cyclic loads

such as maneuvers or gusts, even while

the airplane is operating under the

current flight and operating restrictions.

The only way we can ensure that the

affected airplanes do not have cracked

wing spar assemblies is through the

accomplishment of this inspection and

any necessary wing spar assembly

replacement.

We also recognize that the Raytheon

inspection procedure has the potential

of indicating cracks when there are

none. Again, the safety implications of

allowing an airplane to continue

operation with a cracked spar far

outweigh the possibility of a false crack

indication from the inspection.

We are not changing the final rule as

a result of these comments.

Comment Issue No. 4: Return the

Affected Airplanes to Their Original

Flight Limitations and Limit the AD to

Those Airplanes in Air Combat

Operations

What is the commenters’ concern?

Several commenters state that only

those airplanes that are utilized in air

combat operations are subject to the

fatigue stress that warrants this AD

action. The commenters request that

34804 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

FAA exempt those airplanes that do not

fly in these operations.

Two other commenters state that the

proposed AD is not necessary and

recommend that we withdraw AD 99–

12–02. These commenters also

recommend closely monitoring the

operations of air combat since they

believe that is the reason for the fatigue

damage to the wings of the affected

airplanes.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? Although we concur that air

combat operations reduces the fatigue

life of the wing spars of the affected

airplane, fatigue problems can also exist

for airplanes involved in acrobatic

maneuvers, not just air combat

operations. Therefore, we have

determined that the AD is necessary for

all of the airplanes referenced in the

NPRM to address the unsafe condition.

We are not changing the final rule as

a result of these comments.

Comment Issue No. 5: Change the

Inspection Requirements

What is the commenters’ concern?

Several commenters provided

information on the need for both initial

and repetitive inspections. Specifically

they are as follows:

—One commenter states that a one-time

inspection in accordance with the

service bulletin is sufficient;

—Four commenters recommend that

FAA require only a visual inspection

to locate displaced rivets, signs of

fatigue, unusual wear, any stress

related material, or corrosion. These

commenters recommend this

inspection to coincide with annual or

100-hour time-in-service (TIS)

inspections;

—Six commenters recommend

repetitive inspections at intervals of

500 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever

occurs first. These commenters

recommend more intense inspections

for airplanes flown in high stress

conditions;

—One commenter recommends

repetitive inspections at intervals of

200 hours TIS;

—One commenter recommends no

repetitive inspections if the airplane

is found crack-free during the initial

inspection; and

—Another commenter recommends no

repetitive inspections or at the very

least repetitive inspections at 1,000-

hour TIS intervals. This commenter

also suggests more stringent

inspection requirements when cracks

are found to monitor the crack

growth.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur with any of

these requests. Our analysis shows that

the 80-hour TIS repetitive inspection

interval is necessary to detect cracks at

the earliest time before they progress to

a point of failure. As discussed

previously, we have data that shows

fatigue problems for airplanes involved

in acrobatic maneuvers as well as air

combat operations.

However, we are changing the

compliance time of the initial

inspection to ‘‘within the next 80 hours

time-in-service (TIS) after the effective

date of this AD or within 12 months

after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later’’ instead of

‘‘* * * whichever occurs first.’’ This

will give operators of high-usage

airplanes 12 months to accomplish the

inspection and will give those operators

who do not operate 80 hours TIS in a

year more time to comply. All operators

must maintain the flight and operating

restrictions required by AD 99–12–02

until the initial inspection.

Comment Issue No. 6: Either Limit the

Affected Airplanes to Utility Category

Operation or Exclude Those Airplanes

Only Operating in Utility Category

What is the commenters’ concern?

One commenter requests that, since the

Model D45 (T–34B) airplanes are

operated in the Utility category and not

the Acrobatic category, the AD should

not apply to these airplanes. Another

commenter recommends that FAA

require all affected airplanes to operate

according to Utility category operating

requirements after accomplishing the

initial inspection.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur with these

requests. We can neither exempt the

Model D–45 (T–34B) airplanes from the

AD nor can we change the operational

category of all of the affected airplanes

because the wings of the Model A45 (T–

34A, B–45) are interchangeable with

wings of the Model D45 (T–34B)

airplanes. Field experience reveals that

the wings of these airplanes have been

interchanged. We have no assurance

that reliable records exist of wing

interchange between these airplanes.

Therefore, we have determined that, if

we incorporated these requests, an

unsafe condition could exist or develop

on these airplanes.

We are not changing the final rule as

a result of these comments.

Comment Issue No. 7: Correct the

Airspeed Indicator Glass Modification

Information in the AD

What is the commenters’ concern?

One commenter requests that FAA

change the information from the

modification to the red radial line on

the airspeed indicator glass from 225

miles per hour (mph) to 252 mph. This

commenter also states that the word

‘‘edge’’ should be added after the word

‘‘outside’’ in the fourth bullet in

paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(A) of the NPRM.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We concur with these changes.

Since these are the type-certificated

operating limitations, we are not

repeating these in the final rule.

Comment Issue No. 8: Withdraw the

NPRM and AD 99–12–02

What is the commenters’ concern?

Several commenters state that FAA

should not only withdraw the NPRM,

but should also withdraw AD 99–12–02.

The commenters believe that we have

no justification for issuing either of

these regulatory documents.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur with these

comments. Our decision to issue AD

99–12–02 was based on our analysis and

examination of all available data

concerning an in-flight separation of the

right wing on a Raytheon Beech Model

A45 (T–34A) airplane. Our decision to

issue the NPRM was based on the

development of inspection procedures

that when accomplished would allow

the airplane to operate in accordance

with the original flight and operating

restrictions. As discussed earlier in this

document, we have determined that the

unsafe condition is addressed by:

—Repetitively inspecting the wing spar

assembly for cracks and replacing any

wing spar assembly found cracked

(unless the spar assembly has a crack

indication in the filler strip where the

direction of the crack is toward the

outside edge of the filler strip); and

—Continuing the flight and operating

restrictions required by AD 99–12–02

until the initial inspection is

accomplished.

We are not making any changes to the

final rule based on these comments.

FAA’s Determination and Provisions of

the AD

What is FAA’s Final Determination on

this Issue? After careful review of all

available information related to the

subject presented above, we have

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for the

change in the initial inspection

compliance time and minor editorial

corrections. We determined that this

compliance time change and the minor

editorial corrections:

—Will not change the meaning of the

AD; and

Will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34805

proposed (the compliance time

change actually reduces the burden of

when the inspection must be

accomplished).

Why is the compliance of the initial

inspection in hours time-in-service (TIS)

and calendar time? We have established

the compliance time of the initial

inspection at the next 80 hours TIS or

12 months with the prevalent one being

that which occurs later. This will give

operators of high-usage airplanes 12

months to accomplish the inspection

and will give those operators who do

not operate 80 hours TIS in a year more

time to comply. All operators must

maintain the flight and operating

restrictions required by AD 99–12–02

until the initial inspection. We have

determined that the dual compliance

time will ensure that the safety issue is

addressed in a timely manner without

inadvertently grounding any of the

affected airplanes.

How many airplanes does this AD

impact? The FAA estimates that this AD

affects 476 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of the initial

inspection on owners/operators of the

affected airplanes? We estimate that it

will take approximately 241 workhours

per airplane to accomplish the initial

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 an hour. Based on these figures,

FAA estimates the cost impact of the

initial inspection on U.S. operators at

$6,882,960, or $14,460 per airplane.

What about the cost of repetitive

inspections and replacements? The

figures above only take into account the

cost of the initial inspection and do not

take into account the cost of repetitive

inspections or the cost to replace a

cracked wing spar assembly. We have

no way of determining the number of

repetitive inspections each owner/

operator will incur over the life of an

affected airplane or the number of

airplanes that will have a cracked wing

spar(s) and need replacement.

The cost of each repetitive inspection

will be $1,860 per airplane (31

workhours × $60 per hour).

Raytheon no longer produces wings

spars for the affected airplanes. If a wing

spar is found cracked, you will have to

install an FAA-approved wing spar

configuration in order to continue to

operate the airplane. For cost estimate

purposes, we are using information on

installing a Raytheon Beech 55 or 58

series airplane wing spar on a Raytheon

Beech Model A45 airplane in

accordance with Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) No. SA5521NM. Nogle

and Black Aviation, Inc., owns this STC.

The cost to replace a cracked wing spar

through this STC will be $14,100 (160

workhours × $60 per hour plus $4,500

for parts). The airplane will still be

subject to the inspection requirements

in this AD.

Regulatory Impact

Does this AD impact various entities?

The regulations adopted herein will not

have a substantial direct effect 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, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule

or regulatory action? For the reasons

discussed above, I certify that this

action (1) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866;

(2) is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

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 final

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, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends § 39.13 by removing

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99–12–02,

Amendment 39–11193 (64 FR 31689,

June 14, 1999), and by adding a new AD

to read as follows:

2001–13–18 Raytheon Aircraft Company:

Amendment 39–12300; Docket No.

2000–CE–09–AD, Supersedes AD 99–12–

02, Amendment 39–11193.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD applies to Beech Models 45 (YT–34),

A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 (T–34B)

airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in

any category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct cracks in the wing spar

assemblies and ensure the operational safety

of the above-referenced airplanes.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must maintain the actions of

AD 99–12–02 (superseded by this AD) that

are outlined in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and

(d)(3) of this AD, including all

subparagraphs, until you accomplish the

initial inspection required in paragraph (d)(5)

of this AD (paragraphs d(1)–(d)(4) are actions

retained from AD 99–12–02, and paragraphs

(d)(5)–(d)(7) on actions new to this AD:

Action When In accordance with

(1) Accomplish the following placard requirements:

(i) Fabricate two placards using letters of at least 1⁄10-inch in height with each consisting of the following words: ‘‘Never exceed speed, Vne-175

MPH (152 knots) IAS; Normal Acceleration (G)

Limits 0, and +2.5; ACROBATIC MANEUVERS

PROHIBITED

All actions required prior to further flight after July 9,

1999 (the effective date of AD 99–12–02), unless already accomplished

Not Applicable.

(ii) Install these placards on the airplane instrument

panels (one on the front panel and one on the

rear panel) next to the airspeed indicators within

the pilot’s clear view.

(iii) Insert a copy of this AD into the Limitations Section on the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).

34806 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Action When In accordance with

(2) Modify each airspeed indicator glass by accomplishing the following:

(i) Place a red radial line on each indicator glass at

175 miles per hour (mph) (152 knots).

All actions required within 10 hours time-in-service

(TIS) after July 9, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99–

12–02), unless already accomplished

Not Applicable.

(ii) Place a white slippage index mark between each

airspeed indicator glass and case to visually

verify that the glass has not rotated.

(3) Mark the outside surface of the ‘‘g’’ meters with lines

of approximately 1⁄16-inch by 3⁄16-inch, as follows:

(i) A red line at 0 and 2.5; and .................................. All actions required within 10 hours time-in-service

(TIS) after July 9, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99–

12–02), unless already accomplished

Not Applicable.

(ii) A white slippage mark between each ‘‘g’’ meter

glass and case to visually verify that the glass

has not rotated.

(4) The actions required by paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), and

(d)(3) are no longer required after the initial inspection

required in paragraph (d)(5) of this AD is accomplished.

Upon accomplishment of the initial inspection required

in paragraph (d)(5) of this AD, unless already accomplished

Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No.

SB 57–3329, Issued:

February, 2000.

(5) Inspect the wing spar assemblies for cracks Initially inspect within the next 80 hours time-in-service

(TIS) after August 16, 2001 (the effective date of this

AD) or within 12 months after August 16, 2001 (the

effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, unless already accomplished. Inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 80 hours TIS

Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No.

SB 57–3329, Issued:

February, 2000.

(6) Replace any cracked wing spar assembly. A crack

indication in the filler strip is allowed if the direction of

the crack is toward the outside edge of the filler strip.

If the direction of the crack is toward the inside edge

of the filler strip or any crack is found in any other

area, you must replace the cracked wing spar assembly

Prior to further flight after the required inspection where

the cracked wing spar assembly is found

The applicable maintenance manual.

(7) Submit a report to FAA that describes the damage

found on the wing spar. Use the chart on pages 58

through 60 of Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory Service

Bulletin No. SB 57–3329, Issued: February, 2000

Within 10 days after the initial inspection or within 10

days after August 16, 2001 (the effective date of this

AD), whichever occurs later, unless already accomplished

Page 58 through 60 of

Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No.

SB 57–3329, Issued:

February, 2000.

(i) Submit this report even if no cracks are found .....

(ii) Submit this report to FAA at the address found

in paragraph (f) of this AD.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

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

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(3) The one alternative method of

compliance approved in accordance with AD

99–12–02, which is superseded by this AD,

is approved as an alternative method of

compliance with this AD.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Paul Nguyen,

Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road,

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone: (316) 946–4125; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD?

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? You must

accomplish the actions required by this AD

in accordance with Raytheon Aircraft

Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 57–3329,

Issued: February, 2000. The Director of the

Federal Register approved this incorporation

by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. You can get copies from Raytheon

Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box 85, Wichita,

Kansas 67201–0085. You can look at copies

at FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(i) Does this AD action affect any existing

AD actions? This amendment supersedes AD

99–12–02, Amendment 39–11193.

(j) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on August 16, 2001.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June

22, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–16250 Filed 6–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P