7922 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

Jetstream Aircraft Limited: Docket No. 92–

CE–13–AD.

Applicability: Jetstream Models 3101 and

3201 airplanes (serial numbers 757 through

912), certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required within the next 50

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent occupant injury during an

emergency situation because of the inability

to remove an escape hatch, accomplish the

following:

(a) For both Models 3101 and 3201

airplanes, modify the shear fitting at the top

of the right-hand escape hatch in accordance

with PART A of the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Jetstream Service

Bulletin (SB) 52–JM 7752, dated December

17, 1991.

(b) For Model 3201 airplanes, modify the

shear fitting at the top of the left-hand escape

hatch in accordance with PART B of the

ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section of Jetstream SB 52–JM 7752, dated

December 17, 1991.

(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.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Brussels Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Europe,

Africa, and Middle East Office, c/o American

Embassy, B–1000 Brussels, Belgium. The

request should be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Brussels ACO.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Brussels ACO.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the documents referred

to herein upon request to Jetstream Aircraft

Limited, Manager Product Support,

Prestwick Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW

Scotland; telephone (44–292) 79888; or

Jetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian, P.O. Box

16029, Dulles International Airport,

Washington, DC 20041–6029; or may

examine these documents at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

February 6, 1995.

Michael K. Dahl,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3360 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 90–CE–67–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream

Aircraft Limited (Formerly British

Aerospace, Regional Aircraft Limited)

Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM);

reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: This document reopens the

comment period for an earlier proposed

airworthiness directive (AD) that

proposed to supersede AD 90–13–12,

which currently requires modifying the

airplane electrical system and revising

the emergency procedures section of the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) on

certain Jetstream Aircraft Limited (JAL)

Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201

airplanes. The proposal would have

retained the requirements of that AD for

those airplanes that have not installed

modified inverters and restored the

inverted transfer function. Since

publication of that proposal, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has reexamined various service difficulty

reports on the affected airplanes, and

determined that the proposed

modification is still a valid safety issue

(but not an urgent safety of flight issue).

Since sufficient time has passed (more

than 12 months) since the issuance of

the original proposal, the FAA is

allowing additional time for the public

to comment. The proposed actions are

intended to prevent alternating current

system failures, which, if not detected

and corrected, could result in damage to

the airplane navigational systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 90–CE–67–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Jetstream Aircraft Limited, Manager

Product Support, Prestwick Airport,

Ayrshire, KA9 2RW Scotland; telephone

(44–292) 79888; facsimile (44–292)

79703; or Jetstream Aircraft Inc.,

Librarian, P.O. Box 16029, Dulles

International Airport, Washington, DC

20041–6029; telephone (703) 406–1161;

facsimile (703) 406–1469. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Raymond A. Stoer, Program Officer,

Brussels Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle East

Office, c/o American Embassy, B–1000

Brussels, Belgium; telephone (322)

513.3830; facsimile (322) 230.6899; or

Mr. John P. Dow, Sr., Project Officer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone (816) 426–6932;

facsimile (816) 426–2169.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 90–CE–67–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, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 90–CE–67–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7923

apply to certain JAL Jetstream Models

3101 and 3201 airplanes was published

in the Federal Register on March 30,

1992 (57 FR 10747). The action

proposed to supersede AD 90–13–12

with a new AD that would (1) retain the

requirements of modifying the airplane

electrical system and revising the

emergency procedures section of the

AFM required by AD 90–13–12; and (2)

require these modification and revisions

only for those airplanes that have not

installed modified inverters, P/N

1B350–1B1–3, in accordance with the

instructions in Jetstream Service

Bulletin (SB) 24–JM 7740, dated

November 15, 1990, and have not

restored the inverter transfer function in

accordance with the instructions in

Jetstream SB 24–JA 900941, dated

November 14, 1990; or Jetstream SB 24–

JA 900941, Revision 1, dated February

18, 1992. The proposed airplane

electrical modifications would be

accomplished in accordance with

Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)

24–A–JA 900443, Revision 1, dated May

1, 1990; and Jetstream ASB 24–A–JM

7708, Revision 1, dated May 22, 1990.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

Since publication of the proposal, the

FAA has re-examined various service

difficulty reports on the affected

airplanes, and determined that the

proposed modification is still a valid

safety issue, but is not considered an

urgent safety of flight issue. Since

sufficient time has passed (more than 12

months) since the issuance of the

original proposal, the FAA is reopening

the comment period to provide

additional time for public comment.

The FAA estimates that 180 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 10 workhours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

action, and that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $108,000. This figure is

based on the assumption that no

affected owner/operator has

accomplished the required

modification.

Since AD 90–13–12, which would be

superseded by this action, required the

same actions (except for a limit in the

airplane applicability), there is no

additional cost of this AD on U.S.

operators. The $28,800 cost difference

between this AD (estimated $108,000)

and superseded AD 90–04–04

(estimated $79,200) is a result of

inflationary costs used in determining

the costs of labor ($60 per hour as

opposed to $40 per hour).

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 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) 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 has been placed 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 AD 90–13–12, Amendment

39–6629 (55 FR 23890, June 13, 1990),

and adding a new AD to read as follows:

Jetstream Aircraft Limited: Docket No. 90–

CE–67–AD.

Applicability: Jetstream Models 3101 and

3201 airplanes (serial numbers 697 through

904), certificated in any category, that have

not accomplished the following:

1. Installed two modified inverters, part

number (P/N) 1B350–1B1–3, in accordance

with the instructions in Jetstream Service

Bulletin (SB) 24–JM 7740, dated November

15, 1990; and

2. Restored the inverter transfer function in

accordance with the instructions in Jetstream

SB 24–JA 900941, dated November 14, 1990;

or Jetstream SB 24–JA 900941, Revision 1,

dated February 18, 1992. Compliance:

Required as indicated, unless already

accomplished (compliance with superseded

AD 90–13–12).

To prevent alternating current system

failures, which, if not detected and corrected,

could result in damage to the airplane

navigational systems, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within the next 50 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD, modify the airplane electrical system

and revise the emergency procedures section

of the airplane flight manual in accordance

with the instructions in Jetstream Alert

Service Bulletin (ASB) 24–A–JA 900443,

Revision 2, dated November 15, 1990,

Section 2, ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS; and APPENDIX C.

(b) Within the next 100 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, modify the airplane

electrical system in accordance with the

instructions in Jetstream ASB 24–A–JM 7708,

Revision 1, dated May 22, 1990, and revise

the emergency procedures section of the

airplane flight manual in accordance with the

instructions in Jetstream ASB 24–A–JA

900443, Revision 2, dated November 15,

1990, APPENDIX C; or whichever of the

following Advance Amendment Bulletins

(AAB) is applicable:

Model Publication

3101 ......... AFM HP.4.10, Jetstream AAB

number 6 with at least issue 1

status; and AFM HP.4.10, Jetstream AAB number 4 with at

least issue 2 status.

3201 ......... AFM HP.4.16, Jetstream AAB

number 2 with at least issue 2

status, and removal of Jetstream AAB number 2, issue

1.

Note 1: Compliance with a previous

revision level of the service bulletins

referenced in this AD fulfills the applicable

requirements of this AD and is considered

‘‘unless already accomplished’’.

(c) Replacement of both inverters, P/N

1B350–1B1–2, with modified inverters P/N

1B350–1B1–3 in accordance with the

‘‘ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS’’

section of Jetstream SB 24–JM 7740, dated

November 15, 1990, and restoration of the

inverter transfer function in accordance with

Jetstream ASB 24–JA 900941, dated

November 14, 1990; or Jetstream ASB 24–JA

900941, Revision 1, dated February 18, 1992,

is considered terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(d) 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.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that
7924 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Brussels Aircraft

Certification Office ACO, FAA, Europe,

Africa, and Middle East Office, c/o American

Embassy, B–1000 Brussels, Belgium. The

request should be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Brussels ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Brussels ACO.

(f) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the documents referred

to herein upon request to Jetstream Aircraft

Limited, Manager Product Support,

Prestwick Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW

Scotland; telephone (44–292) 79888; or

Jetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian, P.O. Box

16029, Dulles International Airport,

Washington, DC 20041–6029; or may

examine these documents at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(g) This amendment supersedes AD 90–13–

12, Amendment 39–6629.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

February 6, 1995.

Michael K. Dahl,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3361 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–70–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 Series Airplanes

and Model KC–10A (Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that proposed a new airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to all

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series

airplanes and Model KC–10A (military)

airplanes. That action would have

required modification of the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system. Since

the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has

determined that other means are in

place that adequately address the unsafe

condition. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray

Vakili, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion

Branch, ANM–141L, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5262; fax (310) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

add a new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–10 series airplanes and

Model KC–10A (military) airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register as a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

on July 27, 1994 (59 FR 38141). The

proposed rule would have required

modification of the fuel crossfeed dump

shutoff system. That action was

prompted by an FAA determination

that, in the event of a failure of the

number 2 bus tie relay and subsequent

loss of the electrical power source of the

number 2 engine, an all-engine flameout

event could occur due to fuel starvation

during or shortly after a fuel dumping

operation. The proposed actions were

intended to prevent loss of the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system due to a

failure of the number 2 DC bus electrical

relay and subsequent loss of the

electrical power source of the number 2

engine.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to comment on the

proposal. Due consideration has been

given to the comments received.

The majority of commenters request

that the proposed rule be withdrawn for

several reasons:

First, the commenters reference AD

92–22–06, amendment 39–8392 (57 FR

47570, October 19, 1992), applicable to

Model MD–11 and DC–10 series

airplanes and Model KC–10A (military)

airplanes, which was cited in the

preamble to the notice. That AD

requires revising the Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to include information to

specify that electrical malfunctions may

render the automatic fuel dump

termination feature inoperative. That

AD was prompted by an incident in

which the fuel crossfeed dump shutoff

system became inoperative, and fuel

was dumped below the minimum

allowable level. The commenters point

out that the event that prompted the

issuance of that AD occurred on a

Model MD–11 airplane, not a Model

DC–10 series airplane. Because the

design of the fuel shutoff system of the

Model DC–10 is similar to that of the

Model MD–11, the FAA concluded that

the potential unsafe condition could

exist with regard to those airplanes;

however, there was no service history

relevant to the Model DC–10.

Second, the commenters indicate that

the proposed modification of the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system, which

is described in McDonnell Douglas DC–

10 Service Bulletin 28–208, would do

nothing more than add a third level of

redundancy to the crossfeed low level

shutoff relay. In fact, the manufacturer,

in its comments to the proposal, calls

this modification merely ‘‘a design

enhancement’’ to the automatic shut-off

features of the fuel dump system; the

manufacturer does not consider that an

AD to mandate the modification is

justified.

Third, the commenters consider that

the Model DC–10 already has adequate

redundancy present by means of a third

crew member (the flight engineer), who

has specific required duties to monitor

fuel quantity and associated fault

indication systems during fuel dump

operations. The commenters consider

that, with this additional crew member

in the cockpit directly managing the fuel

dumping process, there is adequate

protection against dumping fuel below

the minimum level. The commenters

also point out that, even though AD 94–

07–07 [amendment 39–8865 (59 FR

15853, April 5, 1994)] mandated a

similar modification of the Model MD–

11, those airplanes are operated by a

two-man crew and, therefore, do not

have the same level of redundancy as

the Model DC–10 with its three-man

crew.

For these reasons, the commenters

contend that mandatory modification in

accordance with the requirements of the

proposed rule is not justified for Model

DC–10 series airplanes.

Upon further consideration, the FAA

concurs. The FAA has reviewed the

service history of Model DC–10 series

airplanes with regard to the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system and

finds that the unsafe condition

previously specified in the proposal is

addressed adequately by:

1. the current AFM revisions required

by AD 92–22–06, and

2. the flight engineer having specific

duties associated with monitoring

minimum fuel during dumping

operations.

Accordingly, the proposed rule is

hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawal of this notice of proposed

rulemaking constitutes only such action,

and does not preclude the agency from

issuing another notice in the future, nor

does it commit the agency to any course

of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is

neither a proposed nor a final rule and

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.