24206 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PART 1485—AGREEMENTS FOR THE

DEVELOPMENT OF FOREIGN

MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURAL

COMMODITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 1485

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 5623, 5662–5664 and

sec. 1302, Pub. L. 103–66, 107 Stat. 330.

Subpart B—Market Promotion Program

2. In § 1485.16, paragraph (h) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1485.16 Reimbursement rules.

* * * * *

(h) CCC will reimburse for

expenditures made after the conclusion

of participant’s activity plan year

provided:

(1) The activity was approved prior to

the end of the activity plan year;

(2) The activity was completed within

30 calendar days following the end of

the activity plan year; and

(3) all funds were transferred to pay

for the activity within 4 months

following the end of the activity plan

year.

Signed at Washington, D.C. on May 8,

1996.

Timothy J. Galvin,

Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural

Service and Vice President, Commodity Credit

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 96–12055 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–117–AD; Amendment

39–9613; AD 96–10–08]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737–

300, –400, and –500 series airplanes,

that requires inspection to detect

damage of a wire bundle and clamp that

are located in the electronic/electrical

(E/E) equipment bay, and repair of the

damaged wire bundle. That action also

requires replacement of the existing

steel clamp with a nylon clamp, and

rearrangement of the clamp installation.

This amendment is prompted by a

report of fire in the E/E equipment bay

due to electrical arcing caused by

chafing of a wire bundle. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent chafing of a wire bundle that

could cause short circuiting of the wire

bundle, and could result in smoke and

fire in the E/E equipment bay.

DATES: Effective June 13, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 13,

1996.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket 95–NM–117–AD, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Oshiro, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; telephone (206) 227–2793;

fax (206) 227–1181.

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 Boeing

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on October 13, 1995 (60 FR

53307). That action proposed to require

a visual inspection to detect damage of

the wire bundle and clamp in the

electronic/electrical (E/E) equipment

bay, and repair, if necessary.

Additionally, that action proposed to

require replacement of the rubber

cushioned steel clamp with a nylon

clamp, and the installation of additional

clamps to prevent contact between wire

bundle W2132 (or W0132) and power

feeder wire bundle W0142.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

Request to Withdraw the Rule: Basis

May be an Isolated Incident

One commenter requests that the FAA

first review the findings on airplanes

inspected thus far and, if no incorrect

routing exists on other airplanes, the

proposed rule should be withdrawn.

This commenter states that the

Supplementary Information section of

the preamble to the proposal only states

that an unsafe condition is ‘‘likely to

exist’’ on other airplanes, and asks that

further explanation be given as to why

the FAA believes other airplanes may be

affected. This commenter has received

no reports of similar conditions on other

airplanes.

The FAA agrees that fleetwide

corrective actions should not be

mandated in response to incidents

determined to be truly ‘‘isolated.’’ In

this case, however, AD action is

warranted since the FAA has confirmed

that the incident described in the notice

was the result of a manufacturing error,

and that this error was repeated on

numerous airplanes. As part of its

investigation, the FAA conducted

inspections of 10 airplanes in the

manufacturer’s production facility.

These inspections revealed that

incorrect wire bundle clamps were

installed in each of these airplanes.

Furthermore, a review of manufacturing

records indicates that this condition

exists in approximately 620 previously

delivered airplanes. In light of this

evidence, the FAA has determined that

the condition addressed by this AD is

not the result of a single isolated

incident, as the commenter suggests.

Request to Withdraw the Rule: No

Essential Flight Circuits are Involved

One commenter requests that the AD

be withdrawn because of the fact that no

essential flight circuits were affected as

a result of the damage to the wiring. The

wire bundle involved in the damage is

not associated with flight-critical

systems.

The FAA agrees that loss of the

systems associated with the damaged

wire bundle would not significantly

affect safe flight and landing of the

airplane. The FAA’s primary concern,

however, is not the loss of system

function, but the possibility of chafing

of a wire bundle that could cause short

circuiting of the wire bundles. Such

short circuiting of the wire bundles

could result in an undetected in-flight

fire, since Electrical Equipment (E/E)

bays of Model 737 airplanes are not

equipped with fire detection systems.

Request to Withdraw the Proposal: No

‘‘Formal’’ Service Document Exists

One commenter contends that the

FAA should not issue an AD that cites

an ‘‘informal’’ service letter (Boeing

Service Letter 737–SL–24–106, dated

March 10, 1995) as the appropriate
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24207

source of instructions for accomplishing

the proposed actions. The commenter

maintains that a ‘‘formal’’ service

bulletin should be issued if the

manufacturer finds the chafing problem

to be more than an isolated incident.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter. The fact that the

manufacturer chose to publish the

service information in a form other than

a ‘‘formal’’ service bulletin, is not a

justifiable reason to withdraw the

proposed AD. It is appropriate for the

FAA to reference in AD’s any document

that is available to affected operators

and contains procedural instructions

necessary for conducting required

actions. Further, the decision to

mandate corrective actions via the AD

process is based on the FAA’s

assessment of the potential hazardous

condition, not the assessment by the

manufacturer.

Request to Withdraw the Rule: Service

Information Incomplete

Two commenters state that the service

letter, cited in the proposed rule as the

appropriate service information,

contains an incomplete list of parts. The

commenters assert that the service letter

only indicates a ‘‘family’’ of hardware,

and leaves the determination of the

appropriate clamp diameters and screw

lengths up to the operators. The

commenters request that an AD not be

issued unless the manufacturer finds it

advisable to publish a formal service

bulletin containing a complete and

accurate list of parts.

The FAA acknowledges the

commenters’ observation that the

service letter contains an incomplete list

of parts; however, that list is not

incomplete to the extent that the AD

should be withdrawn. The FAA finds

that clarification of these parts is

necessary so that operators will have no

difficulty performing the requirements

of this AD. In those situations where

part numbers are incomplete, the

undefined parameters are limited to

non-critical part dimensions or, in the

case of the NAS42DD–6 spacer, a

dimension and finish. The function of

the subject parts is to establish a

reasonable amount of separation from

surrounding structure by providing

positive mechanical support for the wire

bundles. In these applications, a high

degree of precision in the unspecified

dimensions is not essential. It also is

reasonable to assume that the

modification will be accomplished by

trained personnel, whose discretion in

the selection of part sizes is appropriate.

Such discretion will give operators the

flexibility needed to deal with slight

manufacturing variations in the wire

bundle installation of the affected area.

The FAA agrees that some guidance

may prove useful to operators

unfamiliar with the parts identified in

the service letter; therefore, the FAA has

revised paragraph (a) of the final rule to

include descriptions for the installation

of the screw size, spacer clearance, and

specific finish requirements for the

spacers.

Request to Extend Compliance Time

Two commenters request that the

compliance time of the proposed rule be

increased from the proposed 12 months

to 18 months. The commenters state that

extending the compliance period will

allow operators to accomplish the

inspection during a scheduled ‘‘C’’

check, when airplanes are brought to the

main maintenance base for an extended

hold. Adoption of a 12-month

compliance time would require affected

operators to special schedule airplanes

so that the requirements of the rule can

be accomplished; this would entail

additional expenses over what the FAA

estimated in its cost impact information.

The FAA concurs that the compliance

time can be extended somewhat. The

FAA’s intent was that the inspections be

conducted during a regularly scheduled

maintenance visit for the majority of the

affected fleet. The FAA now recognizes

that 15 months corresponds more

closely to the interval representative of

the majority of affected operators’

normal maintenance schedules.

Extending the compliance time by three

additional months will not adversely

affect safety, and will allow the

modification to be performed at a base

during regularly scheduled

maintenance. Paragraph (a) of the final

rule has been revised to reflect a

compliance time of 15 months.

Request to Revise Cost Impact

Information

One commenter requests that the

FAA’s cost impact estimation be revised

to specify that two work hours are

required to accomplish the proposed

modification, instead of one work hour.

The commenter explains that the access

to the work area is from under the cabin

floor, and the personnel performing the

modification are in an awkward

position and are unable to fully view the

work area. Because of these factors, the

modification would take a longer time

that the FAA’s estimated one work hour.

The FAA does not concur. The cost

impact information, below, describes

only the ‘‘direct’’ costs of the specific

actions required by this AD. The FAA’s

estimate of 1 work hours necessary to

accomplish the required actions is based

on the best data available to date, and

represents the time necessary to perform

only the actions actually required by

this AD. The FAA recognizes, that in

accomplishing the requirements of any

AD, operators may incur ‘‘incidental’’

costs in addition to the ‘‘direct’’ costs.

The cost analysis in AD rulemaking

actions, however, typically does not

include incidental costs, such as the

time required to gain access and close

up, planning time, or time necessitated

by other administrative actions. Because

incidental costs may vary significantly

from operator to operator, they are

almost impossible to calculate.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, 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.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 620 Model

737–300, –400, and –500 series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

195 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the required actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts will cost

approximately $25 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$16,575, or $85 per airplane.

The 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.

Regulatory Impact

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
24208 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

96–10–08 Boeing: Amendment 39–9613.

Docket 95–NM–117–AD.

Applicability: Model 737–300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing

Service Letter 737–SL–24–106, dated March

10, 1995; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (c) 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 the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent short circuiting of a wire

bundle located in the electrical/electronics

(E/E) equipment bay, which could result in

smoke and fire, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 15 months after the effective

date of this AD, accomplish the requirements

of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), of this

AD in accordance with Boeing Service Letter

737–SL–24–106, dated March 10, 1995.

Note 2: Screws having part number (P/N)

NAS1801–3–( ) and spacers having P/N

NAS42DD–6–( ), used to install the clamps as

specified by this service letter, should be

selected to provide a minimum of 0.25 inch

clearance between wire bundles and

surrounding structure and objects.

Additionally, the spacers should have a part

number having a chemical film finish code

of ‘‘FC’’ or a gray anodize finish code of ‘‘N.’’

(1) Perform a visual inspection to detect

damage of the wire bundle and clamps in the

E/E compartment. If any damage is detected,

prior to further flight, repair in accordance

with the service letter.

(2) Reclamp wire bundle W2132 (or

W0132) by removing the steel cushioned

clamp and installing a nylon clamp on the aft

side of the existing nut and bolt hole at body

station (BS) 360, water line (WL) 203, left

buttock line (LBL) 57, in accordance with the

service letter.

(3) Install additional clamps to wire

bundles W2132 (or W0132) and power feeder

wire bundle WO142, in accordance with the

service letter.

(b) Within 10 days after detecting any

damage to the wire bundle or clamp as a

result of the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, submit a report of

the damage findings to the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Seattle Manufacturing

Inspection District Office (MIDO), Attention:

George Carter, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 237–6229; fax (206) 965–0264.

Information collection requirements

contained in this regulation have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2120–0056.

(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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(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.

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Boeing Service Letter 737–SL–24–106,

dated March 10, 1995, including

Attachments I and II. 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 Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. 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.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 13, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6,

1996.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11824 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM–121, Special Conditions

No. 25–ANM–113]

Special Conditions: Cessna Aircraft

Model 750 Airplanes; Operation With

Fly-by-Wire Rudder

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

SUMMARY: These special conditions are

issued for the Cessna Aircraft Model 750

airplane. This airplane will have novel

and unusual design features, relating to

its electronic rudder flight control

system, when compared to the state of

technology envisioned in the

airworthiness standards of part 25 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

These special conditions contain the

additional safety standards that the

Administrator considers necessary to

establish a level of safety equivalent to

that provided by the airworthiness

standards of part 25.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark I. Quam, FAA, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113, Transport Standards

Staff, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2145,

facsimile (206) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 15, 1991, Cessna Aircraft

Company (Cessna), 6030 Cessna Blvd.,

P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, KS 67277–7704,

applied for a new type certificate in the

transport airplane category for the

Model 750 (Citation X) airplane. The

Cessna 750 is a twin-engine, swept-wing

business jet aircraft that is configured

for approximately 8–12 passengers. The

airplane has two Allison Engine

Company AE 3007C turbofan engines

rated at 6400 pounds of sea level, static

takeoff thrust. The airplane has a

maximum operating altitude of 51,000

feet and a range of approximately 3300

nautical miles.