Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9647

57A2259, dated February 15, 1990, or

Revision 1, dated September 6, 1990. If no

crack is found, repeat these inspections at

intervals not to exceed 1,000 landings until

the inspections required by paragraph (b) of

this AD are accomplished.

(b) For airplanes on which the

‘‘terminating modification’’ [between front

spar station (FSS) 640 and FSS 670] specified

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

57A2259, dated February 15, 1990; or

Revision 1, dated September 6, 1990; has not

been accomplished: Prior to the

accumulation of 4,000 total landings on the

airplane, or within 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform the inspections specified in

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD

to detect cracks in the web between FSS 628

and FSS 675, in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–57A2259,

Revision 2, dated June 9, 1994.

Accomplishment of these inspections

terminates the repetitive inspection

requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD. If no

crack is found, repeat these inspections

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000

landings.

(1) Perform an ultrasonic inspection in the

web under the upper and lower chord

footprints; and

(2) Perform a high frequency eddy current

inspection in the web in an area one inch

below the upper chord and one inch above

the lower chord footprints; and

(3) Perform a detailed visual inspection in

the forward face of the web of the wing front

spar at fastener locations in the web-tostiffeners and web-to-rib posts.

(c) For airplanes on which the ‘‘terminating

modification’’ specified in Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–57A2259, dated

February 15, 1990; or Revision 1, dated

September 6, 1990; has been accomplished:

Prior to the accumulation of 4,000 total

landings on the airplane, or within 6 months

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform the inspections

specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and

(c)(3) of this AD to detect cracks in the web

between FSS 628 and FSS 636, in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

57A2259, Revision 2, dated June 9, 1994. If

no crack is found, repeat these inspections

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000

landings.

(1) Perform an ultrasonic inspection of the

web under the upper and lower chord

footprints; and

(2) Perform a high frequency eddy current

inspection of the web in an area one inch

below the upper chord and one inch above

the lower chord footprints; and

(3) Perform a detailed visual inspection of

the forward face of the web of the wing front

spar at fastener locations in the web-tostiffeners and web-to-rib posts.

(d) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, accomplish a terminating

modification (between FSS 623 and FSS 670)

in accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–57A2259, Revision 2, dated

June 9, 1994; or in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate.

(e) Installation of a terminating

modification (between FSS 623 and FSS 670)

in accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–57A2259, Revision 2, dated

June 9, 1994; or in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO;

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(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

ACO. 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 2: 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 sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

14, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4122 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–12–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland

Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –301,

–311, and –314 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain de Havilland Model DHC–8

series airplanes. This proposal would

require modification of a certain battery

temperature monitor. This proposal is

prompted by reports of failure of the

battery temperature monitor, which

resulted in smoke in the flight

compartment. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent failure of the battery monitor,

which could result in smoke in the

flight compartment.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

12–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional

Aircraft Division, Garratt Boulevard,

Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5.

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:

Peter Cuneo, Electrical Engineer, ANE–

172, FAA, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York

11581; telephone (516) 256–7506; 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–12–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
9648 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

95–NM–12–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Transport Canada Aviation, which is

the airworthiness authority for Canada,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain de

Havilland Model DHC–8–102, –103,

–106, –301, –311, and –314 series

airplanes equipped with Ametek/

Weston battery temperature monitors

having part number (P/N) 522487.

Transport Canada Aviation advises that

reports have been received of failure of

the battery temperature monitor, which

resulted in smoke in the flight

compartment. The cause has been

attributed to the failure of a currentlimiting resistor in the power supply

circuit in the battery temperature

monitor. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in smoke in the

flight compartment.

De Havilland has issued Service

Bulletin S.B. 8–24–53, dated September

7, 1994, which describes procedures for

modification of a certain battery

temperature monitor. This modification

involves either replacing the Ametek/

Weston battery temperature monitor

having part number (P/N) 522487, with

a new monitor having P/N 522487–1; or

reworking the monitor having P/N

522487, to create a new P/N 522487–1.

The rework procedure involves

replacing a certain resistor (R1) with a

new resistor; adding a certain diode

(CR11) to the circuit board; and reidentifying the battery temperature

monitor. Transport Canada Aviation

classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued Canadian

airworthiness directive CF–94–22, dated

November 24, 1994, in order to assure

the continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Canada.

This airplane model is manufactured

in Canada and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

Transport Canada Aviation has kept the

FAA informed of the situation described

above. The FAA has examined the

findings of Transport Canada Aviation,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

modification of a certain battery

temperature monitor. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this requirement.

The FAA estimates that 137 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. The cost of required parts

would be nominal. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $8,220, or $60 per

airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 95–NM–12–AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–8–102, –103,

–106, –301, –311, and –314 series airplanes,

serial numbers 003 through 389 inclusive;

equipped with Ametek/Weston battery

temperature monitor having part number (P/

N) 522487; 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 (c) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the battery

temperature monitor, which could result in

smoke in the flight compartment, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, modify the battery temperature

monitor in accordance with de Havilland
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9649

Service Bulletin S.B. 8–24–53, dated

September 7, 1994.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install an Ametek/Weston

battery temperature monitor, P/N 522487, on

any airplane.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

14, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4121 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–CE–03–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft SA26, SA226, and SA227

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that would have revised AD 93–19–06,

which requires repetitively inspecting

acrylic cabin and cockpit windows for

cracks on Fairchild Aircraft SA26,

SA226, and SA227 series airplanes, and,

if cracks are found that exceed certain

limits, replacing that window. The

revision document was proposed to

more fully define the crack limits and

establish clearer repetitive inspection

intervals under those crack limits for the

affected airplanes. Several incident

reports of cockpit side window failures

on the affected airplanes that were in

compliance with AD 93–19–06 has

prompted the FAA to propose a

modification to these windows in

another AD action, which would

supersede the current AD. The FAA is

withdrawing the current NPRM and

issuing another NPRM to propose this

modification.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Hung Viet Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Airplane Certification Office, 2601

Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas

76193–0150; telephone (817) 222–5155;

facsimile (817) 222–5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations to include an

airworthiness directive (AD) that would

apply to Fairchild Aircraft SA26,

SA226, and SA227 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14795). The

action proposed to revise AD 93–19– 06,

Amendment 39–8705, to more fully

define the crack limits and establish

clearer repetitive inspection intervals

under those crack limits for the affected

airplanes. AD 93–19–06 requires

repetitively inspecting acrylic cabin and

cockpit windows for cracks on certain

Fairchild Aircraft SA26, SA226, and

SA227 series airplanes, and, if cracks

are found that exceed certain limits,

replacing that window. The actions are

accomplished in accordance with the

following service bulletins (SB), as

applicable:

Fairchild SB 226–56–001, Issued: February 2,

1983; Revised: November 26, 1991.

Fairchild SB 227–56–001, Issued: February 2,

1983; Revised: November 26, 1991.

Fairchild SB 226–56–002, Issued: March 3,

1983; Revised: May 29, 1992.

Fairchild SB 227–56–002, Issued: January 5,

1984; Revised: May 29, 1992, and April

1, 1993.

Fairchild SB 226–56–003, Issued: September

13, 1984; Revised: November 2, 1989.

Fairchild SB 227–56–003, Issued: September

13, 1984; Revised: November 2, 1989.

Fairchild SB 26–56–10–038, Issued: October

8, 1984; Revised: February 7, 1991.

Fairchild SB 26–56–20–042, Issued:

November 28, 1988; Revised: February 7,

1991.

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 issuance of the NPRM, the FAA

has received several incident reports of

cockpit side window failures on the

affected airplanes. All of the airplanes

involved in the referenced incidents are

in compliance with AD 93–19–06. After

a review of all available information

related to the incidents referenced

above, the FAA is proposing a

modification to these windows in

another AD action that would supersede

AD 93–19–06, and is withdrawing the

current NPRM.

Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes

only such action, and does not preclude

the agency from issuing another notice

in the future or commit the agency to

any course of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws an

NPRM, it is neither a proposed rule 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.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, the notice of proposed

rulemaking, Docket No. 93–CE–03–AD,

published in the Federal Register on

March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14795), is

withdrawn.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

February 14, 1995.

Barry D. Clements,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4129 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–CE–22–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft SA26, SA226, and SA227

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede AD 93–19–06, which

currently requires repetitively

inspecting acrylic cabin and cockpit

side windows for cracks on certain

Fairchild Aircraft SA26, SA226, and

SA227 series airplanes, and, if cracks

are found that exceed certain

limitations, replacing that window. The

proposed action would require

modifying certain cockpit side

windows, and would more fully define

the crack limitations and establish

clearer repetitive inspection intervals

for the affected airplanes. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent acrylic cockpit or

cabin side window failures, which, if

not detected and corrected, could result

in airframe damage and decompression

injuries.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation