Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12663

(h) Itemized expenses incurred to date in

the conversion process with an estimate as to

future expenses;

(i) Management’s discussion and analysis

of the proposed conversion, including its

economic advisability and how it will serve

the needs of the members of the merging or

converting credit union;

(j) Business and properties of the proposed

institution—describe in detail the assets of

the credit union and whether these assets

will be transferred to the proposed institution

and how the members will or will not benefit

from the transfer;

(k) Description and comparison of the

competition of the proposed institution and

why the proposed institution believes it can

effectively compete;

(l) In any transaction where the new or

resulting institution is a stock institution,

identify the principal owners of the proposed

stock institution (those who will beneficially

own directly or indirectly 1% or more of the

common and preferred stock outstanding)

starting with the largest common

stockholder. Indicate by footnote if the price

paid was for a consideration other than cash

and the nature of any such consideration.

Indicate the number of shares to be

individually owned by officers, directors and

key personnel of the new institution; and

(m) State in bold on the cover ‘‘PLEASE

READ THIS DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT. IT

CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION

ABOUT YOUR CREDIT UNION.’’

(3) The Mail Ballot must:

(a) State at the top in bold letters using 12

point pitch or greater that ‘‘THE ATTACHED

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT MUST BE READ

BEFORE VOTING ON THE PROPOSED

(‘‘CONVERSION’’ or ‘‘MERGER’’, as

appropriate)’’;

(b) The issues for the member to vote on

should be stated as follows:

Please vote for either (a) or (b) by checking

the appropriate box.

(a) Approve the merger b

(b) Disapprove the merger b

(c) Advise the member of the right to

terminate the mail ballot and attend and vote

at the Special Meeting.

[FR Doc. 95–5593 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–ANE–02; Amendment 39–

9170; AD 95–05–03]

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton

Standard 14RF Series, 14SF Series,

and Hamilton Standard/British

Aerospace Model 6/5500/F Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to Hamilton Standard 14RF

series, 14SF series, and Hamilton

Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F

series propellers, that currently requires

a one-time ultrasonic shear wave

inspection for cracks in the propeller

blade taper bore. This amendment

requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic

shear wave inspections, and a one-time

visual and borescope inspection of the

taper bore for corrosion as a terminating

action to the ultrasonic shear wave

inspections. This amendment is

prompted by reports of two incidents

where a portion of the propeller blade

was lost in flight. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to prevent loss

of a propeller blade due to cracks

initiating in the blade taper bore, that

can result in possible aircraft damage,

and possible loss of aircraft control.

DATES: Effective March 23, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of the

following Hamilton Standard Alert

Service Bulletins (ASB) was approved

by the Director of the Federal Register

as of May 2, 1994: ASB’s No. 14RF–9–

61–A66, No. 14RF–19–61–A34, No.

14RF–21–61–A53, No. 14SF–61–A73,

and No. 6/5500/F–61–A27, all dated

April 18, 1994.

The incorporation by reference of all

other Hamilton Standard ASB’s and

Service Bulletins listed in this AD is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of March 23, 1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

95–ANE–02, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Hamilton

Standard, One Hamilton Road, Windsor

Locks, CT 06096–1010; telephone (203)

654–3610. This information may be

examined at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Burlington, MA; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Walsh, Aerospace Engineer,

Boston Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone

(617) 238–7158, fax (617) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

18, 1994, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) issued

airworthiness directive (AD) 94–09–06,

Amendment 39–8894 (59 FR 19127,

April 22, 1994), applicable to Hamilton

Standard 14RF series, 14SF series, and

Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/

5500/F series propellers, to require an

ultrasonic shear wave inspection of the

blade taper bore for cracks, and

replacement, if necessary, with a

serviceable propeller blade. That action

was prompted by reports of two

incidents where a portion of the

propeller blade was lost in flight. On

March 13, 1994, an ATR–42 commuter

aircraft experienced an inflight loss of

the right propeller and a portion of the

associated engine gearbox. Later that

month, on March 30, 1994, an Embraer

EMB–120 commuter aircraft also

experienced an inflight loss of a portion

of a propeller blade. This blade

fractured at approximately the 19-inch

station and the remainder of the

propeller blade, propeller, and gearbox

remained intact.

Subsequent metallurgical examination

of these fractured blades revealed that

the fracture initiated in a small cavity or

pit that formed on the inner surface of

the taper bore inside the aluminum

blade spar. Further laboratory

investigations revealed these corrosion

pits may develop occasionally when

chlorine residue present in the cork

used to seal the inner taper bore

combines with water in the presence of

oxygen. That condition, if not corrected,

could result in loss of a propeller blade

due to cracks initiating in the blade

taper bore, that can result in possible

aircraft damage, and possible loss of

aircraft control.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has conducted engineering and

laboratory investigation and analysis of

world-wide inspection results received

from AD 94–09–06. This data indicates

that either periodic ultrasonic shear

wave inspection of the propeller taper

bore should be conducted every 1,250

flight cycles in service (CIS) in order to

discover cracks that may initiate in pits,

or a one-time visual and borescope

inspection of the taper bore should be

conducted after removing the propeller

inner taper bore cork seal to insure that

no corrosion has occurred.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

the technical contents of the following

Hamilton Standard Service Bulletins

(SB’s) and Alert Service Bulletins

(ASB’s):

ASB’s No. 14RF–9–61–A66, No.

14RF–19–61–A34, No. 14RF–21–61–

A53, No. 14SF–61–A73, and No. 6/

5500/F–61–A27, all dated April 18,

1994, that describe procedures for

ultrasonic shear wave inspections of the
12664 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

blade taper bores for cracks. These

ASB’s are the same as those referenced

in AD 94–09–06.

SB’s No. 14RF–9–61–70, dated August

26, 1994; No. 14RF–19–61–37, dated

August 29, 1994; No. 14RF–21–61–56,

dated August 29, 1994; No. 14SF–61–75,

dated August 29, 1994; and No. 6/5500/

F–61–30, dated August 29, 1994. These

SB’s describe procedures to remove the

propeller inner taper bore cork seal and

inspect the inside surface of the taper

bore for corrosion pits visually and by

borescope. Blades found to be free of

pits are marked and reidentified.

Propeller blade maintenance logs shall

also be annotated to show compliance

with this AD. Blades found to have any

corrosion pits during these inspections

shall be removed from service prior to

further flight and sent to an FAAapproved repair facility for disposition

in accordance with the instructions of

the appropriate SB.

ASB’s No. 14SF–61–A74, Revision 1,

dated October 5, 1994; No. 14RF–9–61–

A69, Revision 1, dated October 5, 1994;

No. 14RF–19–61–A36, Revision 1, dated

October 5, 1994; No. 14RF–21–61–A55,

Revision 1, dated October 5, 1994; and

No. 6/5500/F–61–A29, dated August 29,

1994. These ASB’s list the serial

numbers of all blades with unpeened

taper bores by model that require

inspection. These ASB’s present several

options as to how to inspect the blade

taper bores, and also give instructions to

operators and repair facilities on how to

report inspection data in order to show

compliance with the AD.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other propellers of this same

type design, this AD supersedes AD 94–

09–06 to require initial and repetitive

ultrasonic shear wave inspections and a

one-time visual and borescope

inspection of the taper bore for

corrosion. Accomplishment of the

visual and borescope inspection

constitutes terminating action to the

repetitive ultrasonic shear wave

inspections. The actions are required to

be accomplished in accordance with the

SB’s and ASB’s described previously.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 AD

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–ANE–02.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866. It

has been determined further that this

action involves an emergency regulation

under DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,

1979). If it is determined that this

emergency regulation otherwise would

be significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from 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, pursuant to 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. 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 39–8894, (59 FR

19127, April 22, 1994), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive,

Amendment 39–9170, to read as

follows:

95–05–03 Hamilton Standard: Amendment

39–9170. Docket 95–ANE–02.

Supersedes AD 94–09–06, Amendment

39–8894.

Applicability: Hamilton Standard Models

14RF–9, 14RF–19, 14RF–21, and 14SF–5,

14SF–7, 14SF–11, 14SFL11, 14SF–15, 14SF–

17, 14SF–19, and 14SF–23; and Hamilton

Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F

propellers installed on but not limited to

Embraer EMB–120 and EMB 120–RT; SAABSCANIA SF 340B; Aerospatiale ATR42–100,

ATR42–300, ATR42–320, ATR72;

DeHavilland DHC–8–100 series, DHC–8–300

Series; Construcciones Aeronauticas SA

(CASA) CN–235 series and CN–235–100;

Canadair CL–215T and CL–415; and British

Aerospace ATP airplanes.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent loss of a propeller blade due to

cracks initiating in the blade taper bore, that

can result in possible aircraft damage, and

possible loss of aircraft control, accomplish

the following:

(a) For propeller blades that have

accumulated 1,750 or more flight cycles since

ultrasonic shear wave inspection in

accordance with AD 94–09–06, perform

either paragraph (a) or (d) of this AD within

100 flight cycles of the effective date of this

AD:

(1) Perform an ultrasonic shear wave

inspection for cracks in the blade taper bore,

in accordance with the procedures described

in the following Hamilton Standard Alert

Service Bulletins (ASB’s), as applicable: No.

14RF–21–61–A53, dated April 18, 1994, and

No. 14RF–21–61–A55, Revision 1, dated

October 5, 1994; No. 14SF–61–A73, dated

April 18, 1994, and No. 14SF–61–A74,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12665

Revision 1, dated October 5, 1994; No. 14RF–

19–61–A34, dated April 18, 1994, and No.

14RF–19–61–A36, Revision 1, dated October

5, 1994; No. 14RF–9–61–A66, dated April 18,

1994, and No. 14RF–9–61–A69, Revision 1,

dated October 5, 1994; No. 6/5500/F–61–

A27, dated April 18, 1994, and No. 6/5500/

F–61–A29, dated August 29, 1994. Remove

cracked propeller blades and replace with a

serviceable blade prior to further flight.

(2) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic

shear wave inspections at intervals not to

exceed 1,250 CIS since last inspection in

accordance with the applicable Hamilton

Standard ASB’s listed in paragraph (a)(1) of

this airworthiness directive (AD). Remove

cracked propeller blades and replace with a

serviceable blade prior to further flight.

(3) No later than December 31, 1997,

perform the visual and borescope inspection

required by paragraph (d) of this AD.

(b) For propeller blades that have

accumulated less than 1,750 flight cycles

since ultrasonic shear wave inspection in

accordance with AD 94–09–06, perform

either paragraph (a) or (d) of this AD before

accumulating 1,850 flight cycles since

ultrasonic shear wave inspection in

accordance with AD 94–09–06.

(c) For propeller blades that have not been

inspected in accordance with AD 94–09–06,

perform paragraphs (a)(1) or (d) of this AD

prior to installing the blade in service and

thereafter perform paragraph (a)(2) of this AD

if applicable.

(d) Prior to December 31, 1997, remove and

scrap the propeller inner taper bore cork seal

and visually inspect the inside surface of the

taper bore for corrosion pits in accordance

with the applicable Hamilton Standard

Service Bulletins (SB’s): No. 14RF–9–61–70,

dated August 26, 1994; No. 14RF–19–61–37,

dated August 29, 1994; No. 14RF–21–61–56,

dated August 29, 1994; No. 14SF–61–75,

dated August 29, 1994; and No. 6/5500/F–

61–30, dated August 29, 1994.

(1) For propeller blades found with any

corrosion pits, remove from service prior to

further flight and send the propeller blades

to an FAA-approved repair facility for

disposition in accordance with Hamilton

Standard ASB’s No. 14SF–61–A74, Revision

1, dated October 5, 1994; No. 14RF–9–61–

A69, Revision 1, dated October 5, 1994; No.

14RF–19–61–A36, Revision 1, dated October

5, 1994; No. 14RF–21–61–A55, Revision 1,

dated October 5, 1994; and No. 6/5500/F–61–

A29, dated August 29, 1994; as applicable.

(2) For propeller blades found with no

corrosion pits, mark the blade and return it

to service in accordance with the Hamilton

Standard SB’s listed in paragraph (d) of this

AD.

(3) Returning propeller blades to service in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD

constitutes terminating action to the

repetitive ultrasonic shear wave inspections

required by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD.

(e) For the purpose of this AD, a flight

cycle is defined as one takeoff and the next

landing of an aircraft.

(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, Boston

Aircraft Certification Office. The request

should be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Boston

Aircraft Certification Office.

(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 aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(h) The requirements of this AD shall be

done in accordance with the following

Hamilton Standard ASB’s and SB’s:

Document No. Pages Revision Date

ASB No. 14SF–61–A74 ............................................................................................................... 1–7 1 ................... October 5, 1994.

Total pages: 7.

ASB No. 14SF–61–A73 ............................................................................................................... 1–19 Original ......... April 18, 1994.

Total pages: 19.

SB No. 14SF–61–75 ................................................................................................................... 1–17 Original ......... August 29, 1994.

Total pages: 17.

ASB No. 14RF–9–61–A69 .......................................................................................................... 1–6 1 ................... October 5, 1994.

Total pages: 6.

ASB No. 14RF–9–61–A66 .......................................................................................................... 1–19 Original ......... April 18, 1994.

Total pages: 19.

SB No. 14RF–9–61–70 ............................................................................................................... 1–17 Original ......... August 29, 1994.

Total pages: 17.

ASB No. 14RF–19–61–A36 ........................................................................................................ 1–6 1 ................... October 5, 1994.

Total pages: 6.

ASB No. 14RF–19–61–A34 ........................................................................................................ 1–19 Original ......... April 18, 1994.

Total pages: 19.

SB No. 14RF–19–61–37 ............................................................................................................. 1–17 Original ......... August 29, 1994.

Total pages: 17.

ASB No. 14RF–21–61–A55 ........................................................................................................ 1–6 1 ................... October 5, 1994.

Total pages: 6.

ASB No. 14RF–21–61–A53 ........................................................................................................ 1–19 Original ......... April 18, 1994.

Total pages: 19.

SB No. 14RF–21–61–56 ............................................................................................................. 1–17 Original ......... August 29, 1994.

Total pages: 17.

ASB No. 6/5500/F–61–A29 ......................................................................................................... 1–5 Original ......... August 29, 1994.

Total pages: 5.

ASB No. 6/5500/F–61–A27 ......................................................................................................... 1–19 Original ......... April 18, 1994.

Total pages: 19.

SB No. 6/5500/F–61–30 .............................................................................................................. 1–17 Original ......... August 29, 1994.

Total pages: 17.

The incorporation by reference of the

following Hamilton Standard ASB’s was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of May 2, 1994: ASB’s No. 14RF–

9–61–A66, No. 14RF–19–61–A34, No. 14RF–

21–61–A53, No. 14SF–61–A73, and No.

6/5500/F–61–A27, all dated April 18, 1994.

The incorporation by reference of all other

Hamilton Standard ASB’s and SB’s listed in

this AD 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 Hamilton Standard, One

Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096–

1010; telephone (203) 654–3610. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,

MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

March 23, 1995.
12666 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

February 28, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–5483 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–97–AD; Amendment

39–9157; AD 95–04–05]

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

(Formerly Canadair) Model CL–600–

2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100) Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Bombardier Model

CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100)

series airplanes, that requires various

modifications of the passenger doors.

This amendment is prompted by reports

that some passenger doors froze shut

during flight and could not be opened

after landing the airplane. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent the passenger doors from

freezing shut, and consequently,

prohibiting the passengers from exiting

the airplane in the event of an

emergency.

DATES: Effective April 7, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of April 7,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier

Regional Aircraft Division, Garratt

Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario, Canada

M3K 1Y5. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

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;

or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michele Maurer, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANE–

173, FAA, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York

11581; telephone (516) 256–7508; fax

(516) 568–2716; telephone (516) 791–

6427; fax (516) 791–9024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Bombardier

Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet

Series 100) series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

October 28, 1994 (59 FR 54136). That

action proposed to require various

modifications of the passenger doors.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

The final rule has been revised to

reflect the manufacturer’s corporate

name change from Canadair to

‘‘Bombardier, Inc.’’

Additionally, 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 added to this final rule to

clarify this long-standing requirement.

After careful review of the available

data the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 17 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 67

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$10,945 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$254,405, or $14,965 per airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted. 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 final rule does

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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from 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, pursuant to 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. 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:

95–04–05 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly

Canadair): Amendment 39–9157. Docket

94–NM–97–AD.

Applicability: Model CL–600–2B19

(Regional Jet Series 100) series airplanes,

serial numbers 7003 and subsequent,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been