25418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules

If any disbonding is detected on any

fuselage skin panel, its repair would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 50 de

Havilland Model DHC–7 series

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 18 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed inspections, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $54,000, or $1,080 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The 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.

Regulatory Impact

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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

De Havilland, Inc: Docket 95–NM–264–AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–7 series

airplanes, serial numbers 003 through 113

inclusive, 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 request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) 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 disbonding of the skin panels

of the fuselage, which could result in

degradation of the structural capability of the

airplane fuselage, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform a non-destructive

inspection to detect disbonding of the

fuselage skin panels, in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier

Service Bulletin S.B. 7–51–1, Revision ’A’,

dated March 31, 1995.

(1) If no disbonding is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 3 years.

(2) If any disbonding is detected, prior to

further flight, repair it in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate.

(b) 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, New York

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

New York ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

(c) 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 May 14,

1996.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager,Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12602 Filed 5–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–54–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Beech

(Raytheon) Model Hawker 1000 and

BAe 125–1000A Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to Beech

(Raytheon) Model Hawker 1000 and

BAe 125–1000A series airplanes, that

currently requires inspections to detect

various discrepancies of the fuel hose

assemblies on the auxiliary power unit

(APU), and correction of any

discrepancy found. That AD was

prompted by several reports of heat

damage to the fuel hose assembly on the

APU. This action would add a

requirement to replace the existing

conduit of the fuel feed hose with new

improved conduit, which would

terminate the repetitive inspections. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent failure of a fuel

hose due to heat damage caused by

incorrect routing or bleed air leakage;

such failure could result in a

malfunction of the APU, a fuel fire in

the fuselage rear equipment bay, and

reduced structural integrity of the

surrounding structure.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

54–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Beech Aircraft Corporation, Hawker

Customer Support Department, P.O. Box

85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. This
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25419

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl

Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,

ACE–116W, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas; telephone

(316) 946–4146; fax (316) 946–4407.

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 96–NM–54–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, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–54–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On April 27, 1995, the FAA issued

AD 95–10–01, amendment 39–9218 (60

FR 22501, May 8, 1995), applicable to

certain Beech (Raytheon) Model Hawker

1000 and BAe 125–1000A series

airplanes, to require inspections to

detect various discrepancies of the fuel

hose assemblies on the auxiliary power

unit (APU), and correction of any

discrepancy found. That action was

prompted by several reports of heat

damage to the fuel hose assembly on the

APU. The requirements of that AD are

intended to prevent failure of a fuel

hose due to heat damage caused by

incorrect routing or bleed air leakage;

such failure could result in a

malfunction of the APU, a fuel fire in

the fuselage rear equipment bay, and

reduced structural integrity of the

surrounding structure.

Actions Since Issuance of AD 95–10–01

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has reviewed and approved Beech

(Hawker/Raytheon) Service Bulletin

SB.49–47–25A825A, dated August 1,

1995, which describes procedures for

the replacement of existing vinyl

conduit (Pt. No. SLV–40–11⁄2)of the fuel

feed hose for the APU with a new

improved conduit (Pt. No. 20 97 04415).

The new conduit is made from

convoluted PTFE (a commercial fluoro

plastic tubing), which can withstand

temperatures of up to 240 degrees

Centigrade. Accomplishment of this

replacement eliminates the need for

repetitive inspections, as described in

Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 49–44,

dated January 20, 1995 (which was cited

in AD 95–10–01 as the appropriate

source of service information).

FAA’s Conclusions

The FAA has determined that

replacement of the existing conduit with

convoluted PTFE tubing will positively

address the unsafe condition identified

as failure of a fuel hose due to heat

damage caused by incorrect routing or

bleed air leakage; such failure could

result in a malfunction of the APU, a

fuel fire in the fuselage rear equipment

bay, and reduced structural integrity of

the surrounding structure.

Explanation of the Requirements of the

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 95–10–01. It would

continue to require inspections to detect

various discrepancies of the fuel hose

assemblies on the auxiliary power unit

(APU), and correction of any

discrepancy found. However, this

proposed AD also would add a new

requirement to replace the existing vinyl

conduit of the fuel feed hose for the

APU with a new improved conduit,

which would constitute terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements. The new action would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with Beech (Hawker/

Raytheon) Service Bulletin SB.49–47–

25A825A, dated August 1, 1995, as

described previously.

The FAA has determined that long

term continued operational safety will

be better assured by modifications or

design changes to remove the source of

the problem, rather than by repetitive

inspections. Long term inspections may

not be providing the degree of safety

assurance necessary for the transport

airplane fleet. This, coupled with a

better understanding of the human

factors associated with numerous

repetitive inspections, has led the FAA

to consider placing less emphasis on

special procedures and more emphasis

on design improvements. The proposed

modification requirement is in

consonance with these considerations.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 48 Beech

Model Hawker 1000 and BAe 125–

1000A series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 31 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 95–10–01 take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact on U.S.

operators of the actions currently

required is estimated to be $1,860, or

$60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new actions that are proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $218 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the cost impact on U.S.

operators of the new proposed

requirements of this AD is estimated to

be $14,198, or $458 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed 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 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
25420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–9218 (60 FR

22501, May 8, 1995), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Beech Aircraft Corporation (formerly

DeHavilland; Hawker Siddeley; British

Aerospace, plc; Raytheon Corporate Jets,

Inc.): Docket 96–NM–54–AD. Supersedes

AD 95–10–01, Amendment 39–9218.

Applicability: Model Hawker 1000 and

BAe 125–1000A series airplanes, post

modification 259722C, 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.

Note 2: Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125–

1000B series airplanes are similar in design

to the airplanes that are subject to the

requirements of this AD and, therefore, also

may be subject to the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. However, as of the

effective date of this AD, those models are

not type certificated for operation in the

United States. Airworthiness authorities of

countries in which the Model BAe 125–

1000B series airplanes are approved for

operation should consider adopting

corrective action, applicable to those models,

that is similar to the corrective action

required by this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of a fuel hose assembly

on the auxiliary power unit (APU), which

could result in a malfunction of the APU, a

potential fuel fire in the fuselage rear bay,

and reduced structural integrity of the

surrounding structure, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 30 days after May 23, 1995 (the

effective date of AD 95–10–01, amendment

39–9218), perform inspections to detect

discrepancies of the fuel feed hose

assemblies on the APU; an inspection to

assure proper positioning of the air leak

detection system; and an inspection of the

bleed air system for signs of leakage; in

accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon

Service Bulletin SB 49–44, dated January 20,

1995.

(1) If no discrepancy is found: Thereafter,

following the last flight of each day, perform

an inspection to detect discoloration of the

fuel hose assembly (outlet from the fuel

pump box) on the APU, in accordance with

paragraph 2.B.(2) and 2.C. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(2) If any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, correct the discrepancy in

accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(b) Within 200 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, replace the existing

conduit of the fuel feed hose for the auxiliary

power unit (APU) with new improved

conduit (modification 25A825A), in

accordance with Beech (Raytheon/Hawker)

Service Bulletin SB.49–47–25A825A, dated

August 1, 1995. Accomplishment of the

replacement constitutes terminating action

for paragraph (a) of this AD.

(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, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small 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, Wichita ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14,

1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12601 Filed 5–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 158

[Docket No. 27791; Notice No. 96–3A]

RIN 2120–AF69

Passenger Facility Charges

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document announces an

extension of the comment period on The

ANPRM entitled, ‘‘Passenger Facility

Charges’’ (61 FR 16678; April 16, 1996).

This comment period is extended from

May 16, 1996, until August 16, 1996.

The extension responds to the request of

the Air Transport Association of

America (ATA) and is needed to permit

ATA, and other affected parties,

additional time to develop comments

responsive to the ANPRM.

DATES: The comment period is being

extended from May 16, 1996, to August

16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: As stated in Notice No. 96–

3, comments should be mailed or

delivered in triplicate, to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 27791, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. Comments

delivered must be marked Docket No.

27791. Comments may be examined in

Room 915G on weekdays, except

Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and

5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheryl Scarborough, Passenger Facility

Charge Branch (App–530), Airports

Financial Assistance Division, Office of

Airports Planning and Programming,

Federal Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–8825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

16, 1996, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) issued Notice No.

96–3, entitled ‘‘Passenger Facility