26778 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

96–11–10 Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI),

Ltd.: Amendment 39–9635. Docket 96–

NM–94–AD.

Applicability: Model 1125 Westwind Astra

series airplanes, serial numbers 004 through

076 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 chafing

of the hydraulic lines, which could result in

leakage of hydraulic fluid and subsequent

loss of one of the two hydraulic systems,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, accomplish the requirements of

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD in

accordance with Astra Jet Service Bulletin SB

1125–29–139, dated August 2, 1995.

(1) Perform a visual inspection for

clearance between the hydraulic lines/

vacuum lines and the electrical wire bundles

at fuselage station 383.00, in accordance with

the service bulletin. Prior to further flight,

repair or replace any damaged line or wire

bundle with a serviceable part in accordance

with the service bulletin.

(2) Install neoprene hose around the

affected hydraulic lines and vacuum lines in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(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,

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.

(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.

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Astra Jet Service Bulletin SB 1125–29–

139, dated August 2, 1995. 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

Technical Publications, Astra Jet

Corporation, 77 McCullough Drive, Suite 11,

New Castle, Delaware 19720. 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.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

June 13, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20,

1996.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–13230 Filed 5–28 –96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–145–AD; Amendment

39–9636; AD 96–11–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–9 series airplanes, that

requires inspection(s) to detect cracking

in the nose skin of the fuselage, and

various follow-on actions. This

amendment also provides for an

optional modification, which would

defer certain repetitive inspections, if no

cracking is detected. This amendment is

prompted by reports of cracking in the

upper nose skin of the fuselage due to

fatigue. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent fatigue-related

cracking, which could compromise the

structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Effective July 3, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department C1–L51 (2–60). 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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5224; fax (310) 627–5210.

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 all McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on January 19, 1996 (61 FR 1301). That

action proposed to require inspection(s)

to detect cracking in the nose skin of the

fuselage, and various follow-on actions.

That action also proposed a provision

for an optional modification, which

would defer certain repetitive

inspections, if no cracking is detected.

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

Two commenters support the

proposed rule.

Request to Extend the Compliance Time

One commenter requests that the

‘‘grace period’’ of the compliance time

for the accomplishment of the high

frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspection be extended from the

proposed 3,000 landings to 4,000

landings. This will allow the HFEC
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26779

inspection to be accomplished during a

regularly scheduled maintenance check,

thereby eliminating any additional

expenses. In addition, the commenter

indicates that it has accomplished the

HFEC inspection on 86 Model DC–9

series airplanes and has found ‘‘a high

rate of positive findings’’ (i.e., cracking).

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to extend the

‘‘grace period’’ of the compliance time.

In developing an appropriate

compliance time for this action, the

FAA considered the safety implications,

parts availability, and normal

maintenance schedules for timely

accomplishment of the HFEC

inspection. In consideration of these

items, as well as the numerous reports

of cracking in the upper nose skin of the

fuselage of airplanes in service, the FAA

has determined that a ‘‘grace period’’ of

3,000 landings, as proposed, is

appropriate. However, under the

provisions of paragraph (b) of the final

rule, the FAA may approve requests for

adjustments to the compliance time if

data are submitted to substantiate that

such an adjustment would provide an

acceptable level of safety.

Request to Allow DER Approval of

Repairs

This commenter also requests that

proposed paragraph (a)(3) be revised to

permit the approval of repairs (of any

cracked areas beyond the repair limits

specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–9

Service Bulletin 53–262) by Designated

Engineering Representatives (DER) of

the McDonnell Douglas Corporation;

this will allow a more expeditious

response time on repair

recommendations.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to revise paragraph

(a)(3) of this AD. While DER’s are

authorized to determine whether a

design or repair method complies with

a specific requirement, they are not

authorized to make the discretionary

determination as to what the applicable

requirement is. Further, where repair

data does not exist, it is essential that

the FAA have feedback as to the type of

repairs being made. The FAA has

determined that the Manager of the Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO) should approve any such repairs

or other deviations to the AD’s

requirements. Given that possible new

relevant issues might be revealed during

this process, it is imperative that the

FAA, at this level, have such feedback.

Only by reviewing deviation approvals

can the FAA be assured of this feedback

and of the adequacy of the repair

methods. However, the FAA, in

conjunction with the Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

(ARAC) currently is considering

guidelines to address this issue, and

may eventually develop additional FAA

policy on this subject.

Request to Allow a Temporary Repair

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise the proposal to allow a temporary

repair, having a life limit of 8,000 flight

cycles, to be accomplished in

accordance with Structural Repair

Manual 53–04, Figure 12B, Class III,

until the proposed permanent repair can

be accomplished. This would minimize

down time for the operator.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

does not consider it appropriate to

include various provisions in an AD

applicable to a single operator’s unique

use of an affected airplane. Paragraph

(b) of this AD provides for the approval

of alternative methods of compliance to

address these types of unique

circumstances.

Request for Clarification of Use of

Previously Approved Repairs

One commenter requests clarification

as to the use of repairs that have been

previously approved by the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO, in accordance with

AD 94–03–01, amendment 39–8907 (59

FR 6538, February 11, 1994).

The FAA agrees that clarification is

necessary. The FAA considers the

subject area of this AD to be identical

to the subject area in AD 94–03–01.

Therefore, repairs that have been

approved previously by the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO, are considered to be

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with paragraphs (a)(2) and

(a)(3) of this AD. Accordingly, the FAA

has revised the final rule to include a

new paragraph (b)(2) to clarify this.

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 change

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 889 Model

DC–9 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 568 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 10 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$340,800, or $600 per airplane, per

inspection.

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. However, since the

issuance of the proposal, the FAA has

been advised that the initial inspection

required by this AD has been

accomplished on at least 86 affected

airplanes. Therefore, the future cost

impact of this AD on U.S. operators is

reduced by approximately $51,600.

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

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.
26780 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

96–11–11 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–9636. Docket 95–NM–145–AD.

Applicability: All Model DC–9–10, –20,

–30, –40, –50, and C–9 (military) series

airplanes, 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)(1) 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 fatigue-related cracking, which

could compromise the structural integrity of

the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total

landings, or within 3,000 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) inspection to detect cracking in the

nose skin of the fuselage, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

53–262, dated October 11, 1994.

(1) If no cracking is detected, accomplish

either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this

AD, in accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 4,000 landings; or

(ii) Accomplish the modification of the

upper nose skin of the cockpit fuselage in

accordance with the service bulletin. Prior to

the accumulation of 60,000 landings after

accomplishment of this modification,

perform a visual inspection of the upper nose

skin of the cockpit fuselage in accordance

with the service bulletin. Repeat the visual

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 25,000 landings.

(2) If any cracking is detected and it is

within the repair limits specified in the

service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair

the cracked nose skin in accordance with the

service bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of

60,000 landings after accomplishment of this

repair, perform a visual inspection to detect

cracking of the repair; and prior to further

flight, repair any cracking found during this

inspection; in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(3) If any cracking is detected and it is

beyond the repair limits specified in the

service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair

the cracked nose skin in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO.

(b)(1) 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, Los

Angeles ACO. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(b)(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved in accordance with AD 94–03–01,

amendment 39–8907, are approved as

alternative methods of compliance with

paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this AD. This

approval only applies to repairs that are

subject to the requirements of this AD.

(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.

(d) The inspections, modification, and

certain repairs shall be done in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 53–262, dated October 11, 1994.

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 McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Technical Publications

Business Administration, Department C1–

L51 (2–60). Copies may be inspected at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California;

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

July 3, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20,

1996.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–13231 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–82–AD; Amendment 39–

9637; AD 96–11–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Beech

Aircraft Corporation Model C90A

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain Beech Aircraft

Corporation (Beech) Model C90A

airplanes equipped with an optional

Beech electric trim system or a Collins

autopilot system. This action requires

modifying the elevator electric trim tab

actuator assembly. Failure of the

elevator electric trim tab system on a

Beech Model C90A prompted the

proposed AD action. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent possible failure of

the elevator electric trim tab system,

which, if not detected and corrected,

could cause loss of airplane

maneuverablity and possible loss of

control of the airplane.

DATES: Effective July 24, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 24,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

Beech Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. This

information may also be examined at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket 95–CE–82–AD, Room

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

Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harvey E. Nero, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification

Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone (316) 946–4137;

facsimile (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an AD that would apply to

Beech Aircraft Corporation (Beech)

Model C90A airplanes equipped with an

optional Beech electric trim system or a

Collins autopilot system was published

in the Federal Register on November 28,

1995 (60 FR 58583). The action

proposed to require procedures for

modifying the elevator electric trim tab

actuator assembly. Accomplishment of

this action will be in accordance with

Beech Service Bulletin (SB) No. 2631,

Issued: June 1995, Revised: September

1995.

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.

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has