Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Model 390 Airplanes, 35385-35388 [05-12060]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 117 / Monday, June 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA), Pub. L. 101–509, 104 Stat. 1462 and 1466; and section 3(7) of Pub. L. 102–378, 106 Stat. 1356; Subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5335(g) and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5336; Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305(g)(1), and 5553; and E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682 and E.O. 13106, 63 FR 68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224; Subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5553; section 302 of the FEPCA, Pub. L. 101–509, 104 Stat. 1462; and E.O. 12786, 56 FR 67453, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 376. Subpart F—Locality-Based Comparability Payments 1. In § 531.603, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: § 531.603 Locality pay areas. * * * * * (b) The following are locality pay areas for purposes of this subpart: (1) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL—consisting of the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA; (2) Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-ME-RI—consisting of the Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH CSA, plus the Providence-New BedfordFall River, RI-MA MSA, Barnstable County, MA, and Berwick, Eliot, Kittery, South Berwick, and York towns in York County, ME; (3) Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY— consisting of the Buffalo-NiagaraCattaraugus, NY Combined Statistical Area; (4) Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI—consisting of the ChicagoNaperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA; (5) Cincinnati-MiddletownWilmington, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN CSA; (6) Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH— consisting of the Cleveland-AkronElyria, OH CSA; (7) Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH—consisting of the ColumbusMarion-Chillicothe, OH CSA; (8) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX—consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA; (9) Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH—consisting of the DaytonSpringfield-Greenville, OH CSA; (10) Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO— consisting of the Denver-AuroraBoulder, CO CSA, plus the Ft. CollinsLoveland, CO MSA and Weld County, CO; (11) Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI— consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA, plus Lenawee County, MI; (12) Hartford-West HartfordWillimantic, CT-MA—consisting of the Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT VerDate jul<14>2003 14:18 Jun 17, 2005 Jkt 205001 CSA, plus the Springfield, MA MSA and New London County, CT; (13) Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX—consisting of the HoustonBaytown-Huntsville, TX CSA; (14) Huntsville-Decatur, AL— consisting of the Huntsville-Decatur, AL CSA; (15) Indianapolis-AndersonColumbus, IN—consisting of the Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN CSA, plus Grant County, IN; (16) Los Angeles-Long BeachRiverside, CA—consisting of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA, plus the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA MSA and all of Edwards Air Force Base, CA; (17) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL MSA, plus Monroe County, FL; (18) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI—consisting of the MilwaukeeRacine-Waukesha, WI CSA; (19) Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI—consisting of the MinneapolisSt. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI CSA; (20) New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA—consisting of the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA, plus Monroe County, PA, and Warren County, NJ; (21) Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJDE-MD CSA, plus Kent County, DE, Atlantic County, NJ, and Cape May County, NJ; (22) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ— consisting of the Phoenix-MesaScottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area; (23) Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA— consisting of the Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA CSA; (24) Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA—consisting of the PortlandVancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA MSA, plus Marion County, OR, and Polk County, OR; (25) Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC— consisting of the Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC Combined Statistical Area, plus the Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, the Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the Federal Correctional Complex Butner, NC; (26) Richmond, VA—consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA; (27) Sacramento—Arden—Arcade— Truckee, CA-NV—consisting of the Sacramento—Arden-Arcade’Truckee, CA-NV CSA, plus Carson City, NV; (28) San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA—consisting of the San DiegoCarlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA; (29) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA—consisting of the San Jose-San PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35385 Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA, plus the Salinas, CA MSA and San Joaquin County, CA; (30) Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA— consisting of the Seattle-TacomaOlympia, WA CSA; (31) Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV—consisting of the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA, plus the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV MSA, and King George County, VA; and (32) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those portions of the continental United States not located within another locality pay area. * * * * * [FR Doc. 05–12033 Filed 6–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325–39–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2005–21410; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–31–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Model 390 Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Model 390 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to replace the rudder pedal arm assemblies used in the rudder control system with parts of improved design. This proposed AD results from reports of cracks found on the rudder pedal arm assemblies. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent failure of the rudder pedal arm assemblies caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could lead to loss of rudder control, loss of nose gear steering, and loss of toe brakes on the side on which the failure occurs. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by August 19, 2005. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1 35386 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 117 / Monday, June 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– 001. • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; telephone: (800) 429–5372 or (316) 676– 3140. To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA–2005– 21410; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE– 31–AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4129; facsimile: (316) 946–4107; email: david.ostrodka@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number, ‘‘FAA–2005–21410; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–31–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). This is docket number FAA–2005–21410; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–31–AD. You may review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Are there any specific portions of this proposed AD I should pay attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts. Docket Information Where can I go to view the docket information? You may view the AD docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (eastern standard time), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1–800– 647–5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion What events have caused this proposed AD? Raytheon received a report that, during ground maintenance operations, the pilot’s outboard rudder pedal arm assembly cracked at the upper end of the arm. While maneuvering the aircraft from a right turn to neutral with toe brake applied during an on-ground compass swing, the rudder pedal arm assembly cracked. Further investigation revealed another airplane with a crack on the copilot’s outboard rudder pedal arm assembly. Raytheon has determined that loading of the rudder pedals off the centerline of the rudder pedal arm assembly results in overload, which causes fatigue cracking of the rudder pedal arm assembly. What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not prevented, cracks 8 work hours × $65 per hour = $520 ......................................................................................... 14:18 Jun 17, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD What has FAA decided? We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing AD action. What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin. How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this proposed AD? On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA’s AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions. Costs of Compliance How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that this proposed AD affects 98 airplanes in the U.S. registry. What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to do the proposed modification: Parts cost Labor cost VerDate jul<14>2003 in the rudder pedal arm assembly could cause the rudder pedal arm assembly to fail. This failure could lead to loss of rudder control, loss of nose gear steering, and loss of toe brakes on the side on which the failure occurs. Is there service information that applies to this subject? Raytheon Aircraft Company has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 27–3691, Rev. 1, Revised February 2005. What are the provisions of this service information? The service bulletin includes procedures for replacing rudder pedal arm assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 390–524350–0001, 390– 524350–0002, 390–524351–0001, and 390–524351–0002 with improved design parts, P/Ns 390–524400–0001, 390–524400–0002, 390–524401–0003, and 390–524401–0004. Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Total cost per airplane $1,165 $1,685 E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1 Total cost on U.S. operators $1,685 × 98 = $165,130 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 117 / Monday, June 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules Raytheon will provide warranty credit for parts and labor to extent stated in the service information. Therefore, the proposed actions, if done following the service information, would have little or no cost to the owners/operators of the affected airplanes. Authority for This Rulemaking What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. Regulatory Findings Would this proposed AD impact various entities? We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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. Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed AD: 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. 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. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘AD Docket FAA–2005–21410; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–31–AD’’ in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA–2005–21410; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–31–AD. 35387 When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD? (a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by August 19, 2005. What Other ADs Are Affected By This Action? (b) None. What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD? (c) This AD affects the following serialnumbered Model 390 airplanes that are certificated in any category: SERIAL NUMBERS (1) RB–1. (2) RB–4 through RB–36. (3) RB–38 through RB–41. (4) RB–43 through RB–67. (5) RB–69 through RB–80. (6) RB–82 through RB–84. (7) RB–87 through RB–94. (8) RB–96 through RB–101. (9) RB–103 through RB–115. (10) RB–117 through RB–119. (11) RB–121. What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD? (d) This AD is the result of reports of cracks found on the rudder pedal arm assemblies used in the rudder control system. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the rudder pedal arm assemblies caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could lead to loss of rudder control, loss of nose gear steering, and loss of toe brakes on the side on which the failure occurs. What Must I Do To Address This Problem? (e) To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures (1) Replace rudder pedal arm assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 390–524350–0001, 390– 524350–0002, 390–524351–0001, and 390– 524351–0002 with improved design parts, P/Ns 390–524400–0001, 390–524400–0002, 390–524401–0003, and 390–524401–0004. (2) Do not install rudder pedal arm assemblies, P/Ns 390–524350–0001, 390–524350–0002, 390–524351–0001, and 390–524351–0002. Upon accumulating 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) or within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already done. Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin, SB 27–3691, Rev. 1, Revised: February, 2005, and the applicable maintenance manual. May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance? (f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your VerDate jul<14>2003 14:47 Jun 17, 2005 Jkt 205001 As of the effective date of this AD. principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946– 4129; facsimile: (316) 946–4107; e-mail: david.ostrodka@faa.gov. E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1 35388 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 117 / Monday, June 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD? (g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; telephone: (800) 429–5372 or (316) 676–3140. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket No. FAA–2005–21410; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–31–AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 14, 2005. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–12060 Filed 6–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 3 RIN 2900–AM15 New and Material Evidence Department of Veterans Affairs. Proposed rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to revise its rules regarding the reconsideration of decisions on claims for benefits based on newly discovered service records received after the initial decision on a claim. The proposed revision would provide consistency in adjudication of certain types of claims. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2005. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273–9026; e-mail to VAregulations@mail.va.gov; or, through http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AM15.’’ All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 273–9515 for an appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maya Ferrandino, Consultant, Compensation and Pension Service VerDate jul<14>2003 14:18 Jun 17, 2005 Jkt 205001 (211A), Policy and Regulations Staff, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–7232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To provide consistency in adjudication, we propose to revise current 38 CFR 3.156(c), to establish clearer rules regarding reconsideration of decisions on the basis of newly discovered service department records. We propose to include the substance of current 38 CFR 3.400(q)(2) in revised § 3.156(c). Current § 3.400(q)(2) governs the effective date of benefits awarded when VA reconsiders a claim based on newly discovered service department records. We propose to redesignate current § 3.400(q)(1) as new § 3.400(q)(1) and (2) without substantive change. Current §§ 3.156(c) and 3.400(q)(2) together establish an exception to the general effective date rule set forth in § 3.400, which provides that the effective date of an award of benefits will be the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. The exception applies when VA receives official service department records that were unavailable at the time that VA previously decided a claim for benefits and those records lead VA to award a benefit that was not granted in the previous decision. Under this exception, the effective date of such an award may relate back to the date of the original claim or date entitlement arose even though the decision on that claim may be final under § 3.104. The provisions in current §§ 3.156(c) and 3.400(q)(2) are also an exception to the general rule in § 3.156(a) concerning claims to reopen based upon ‘‘new and material evidence.’’ Generally, § 3.156(a) and current § 3.400(q)(1) provide that a claimant must submit new and material evidence to reopen a finally denied claim, and the effective date for the award of benefits based upon such evidence may be no earlier than the date VA received the claim to reopen. Current § 3.156(c) states that new and material evidence may consist of supplemental service department records received before or after the decision has become final. Current § 3.156(c) is confusing because including a ‘‘new and material’’ requirement infers that VA may reopen a claim when service department records that were unavailable at the time of the prior decision are received, and the effective date would be the date of the reopened claim. In practice, when VA receives service department records that were unavailable at the time of the prior decision, VA may reconsider the prior decision, and the effective date PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 assigned will relate back to the date of the original claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. We propose to revise § 3.156(c) to clarify VA’s current practice regarding newly received service department records. To eliminate possible confusion regarding the effective date assigned based on newly received service department records, we propose to remove the ‘‘new and material’’ requirement in current § 3.156(c). We also propose to revise current § 3.156(c) by revising the statement in current § 3.156(c) that states that VA will reconsider its decision regarding a claim for benefits if it receives misplaced service department records or certain corrected service department records. In proposed paragraph § 3.156(c)(1), we propose to elaborate on this statement and generally describe service department records as including any official service department records relating to the claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name, as long as the other requirements of paragraph (c) are met. We intend that this broad description of ‘‘service department records’’ will also include unit records, such as those obtained from the Center for Research of Unit Records (CRUR) that pertain to military experiences claimed by a veteran. Such evidence may be particularly valuable in connection with claims for benefits for post traumatic stress disorder. We also propose to clarify the language in current § 3.156(c), which suggests that reconsideration may occur only if the service department records ‘‘presumably have been misplaced and have now been located.’’ Even though the current language can be read as a limitation, in practice, VA does not limit its reconsideration to ‘‘misplaced’’ service department records. Rather, VA intended the reference to misplaced records as an example of the type of service department records that may have been unavailable when it issued a decision on a claim. The proposed revision to § 3.156(c) removes this ambiguity. Proposed § 3.156(c)(1)(iii), adds ‘‘declassified records that could not have been obtained because the records were classified when VA decided the claim’’ as an example of service department records that may have been unavailable at the time of the prior decision. Declassified records may provide evidence of injuries, exposures, or other events in service that may support a claim for VA benefits. Classified service department records are similar to misplaced records and subsequently corrected records in that E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 117 (Monday, June 20, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35385-35388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12060]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2005-21410; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-31-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Model 390 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) 
for certain Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Model 390 airplanes. 
This proposed AD would require you to replace the rudder pedal arm 
assemblies used in the rudder control system with parts of improved 
design. This proposed AD results from reports of cracks found on the 
rudder pedal arm assemblies. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent 
failure of the rudder pedal arm assemblies caused by fatigue cracks. 
This failure could lead to loss of rudder control, loss of nose gear 
steering, and loss of toe brakes on the side on which the failure 
occurs.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by August 19, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed 
AD:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.

[[Page 35386]]

     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, 
contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 
67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140.
    To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to http://dms.dot.gov. 
The docket number is FAA-2005-21410; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-31-
AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer, 
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, 
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4129; facsimile: (316) 946-
4107; e-mail: david.ostrodka@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any 
written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. 
Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the 
docket number, ``FAA-2005-21410; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-31-AD'' 
at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we 
receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal 
information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each 
substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed 
rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone 
can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, 
including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed 
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
This is docket number FAA-2005-21410; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-
31-AD. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the 
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you 
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
    Are there any specific portions of this proposed AD I should pay 
attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall 
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this 
proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and 
that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will 
summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will 
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 
proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts.

Docket Information

    Where can I go to view the docket information? You may view the AD 
docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final 
disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m. (eastern standard time), Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on 
the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at 
the street address stated in ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD docket 
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The comments will be available 
in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

Discussion

    What events have caused this proposed AD? Raytheon received a 
report that, during ground maintenance operations, the pilot's outboard 
rudder pedal arm assembly cracked at the upper end of the arm.
    While maneuvering the aircraft from a right turn to neutral with 
toe brake applied during an on-ground compass swing, the rudder pedal 
arm assembly cracked.
    Further investigation revealed another airplane with a crack on the 
copilot's outboard rudder pedal arm assembly.
    Raytheon has determined that loading of the rudder pedals off the 
centerline of the rudder pedal arm assembly results in overload, which 
causes fatigue cracking of the rudder pedal arm assembly.
    What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not 
prevented, cracks in the rudder pedal arm assembly could cause the 
rudder pedal arm assembly to fail. This failure could lead to loss of 
rudder control, loss of nose gear steering, and loss of toe brakes on 
the side on which the failure occurs.
    Is there service information that applies to this subject? Raytheon 
Aircraft Company has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 27-3691, Rev. 
1, Revised February 2005.
    What are the provisions of this service information? The service 
bulletin includes procedures for replacing rudder pedal arm assemblies, 
part numbers (P/Ns) 390-524350-0001, 390-524350-0002, 390-524351-0001, 
and 390-524351-0002 with improved design parts, P/Ns 390-524400-0001, 
390-524400-0002, 390-524401-0003, and 390-524401-0004.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    What has FAA decided? We have evaluated all pertinent information 
and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop 
on other products of this same type design. For this reason, we are 
proposing AD action.
    What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require 
you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service 
bulletin.
    How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this proposed AD? On 
July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 
47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation 
now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight 
permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material 
previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is 
included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD 
actions.

Costs of Compliance

    How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that 
this proposed AD affects 98 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
    What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/
operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to 
do the proposed modification:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total
                 Labor cost                    Parts     cost per          Total cost on U.S.  operators
                                                cost     airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work hours x $65 per hour = $520.........     $1,165     $1,685  $1,685 x 98 = $165,130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 35387]]

    Raytheon will provide warranty credit for parts and labor to extent 
stated in the service information. Therefore, the proposed actions, if 
done following the service information, would have little or no cost to 
the owners/operators of the affected airplanes.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? 
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.

Regulatory Findings

    Would this proposed AD impact various entities? We have determined 
that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under 
Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial 
direct effect 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.
    Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory 
action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 
AD:
    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. 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.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD 
(and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and 
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by 
sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include 
``AD Docket FAA-2005-21410; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-31-AD'' in 
your request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive (AD):

Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2005-21410; Directorate 
Identifier 2005-CE-31-AD.

When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD?

    (a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD) by August 19, 2005.

What Other ADs Are Affected By This Action?

    (b) None.

What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD?

    (c) This AD affects the following serial-numbered Model 390 
airplanes that are certificated in any category:

                             Serial Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) RB-1.
(2) RB-4 through RB-36.
(3) RB-38 through RB-41.
(4) RB-43 through RB-67.
(5) RB-69 through RB-80.
(6) RB-82 through RB-84.
(7) RB-87 through RB-94.
(8) RB-96 through RB-101.
(9) RB-103 through RB-115.
(10) RB-117 through RB-119.
(11) RB-121.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

    (d) This AD is the result of reports of cracks found on the rudder 
pedal arm assemblies used in the rudder control system. The actions 
specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the rudder 
pedal arm assemblies caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could lead 
to loss of rudder control, loss of nose gear steering, and loss of toe 
brakes on the side on which the failure occurs.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Replace rudder pedal arm  Upon accumulating     Follow Raytheon
 assemblies, part numbers (P/  300 hours time-in-    Aircraft Company
 Ns) 390-524350-0001, 390-     service (TIS) or      Mandatory Service
 524350-0002, 390-524351-      within 100 hours      Bulletin, SB 27-
 0001, and 390-524351-0002     TIS after the         3691, Rev. 1,
 with improved design parts,   effective date of     Revised: February,
 P/Ns 390-524400-0001, 390-    this AD, whichever    2005, and the
 524400-0002, 390-524401-      occurs later,         applicable
 0003, and 390-524401-0004.    unless already done.  maintenance manual.
(2) Do not install rudder     As of the effective
 pedal arm assemblies, P/Ns    date of this AD.
 390-524350-0001, 390-524350-
 0002, 390-524351-0001, and
 390-524351-0002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?

    (f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 
39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your 
principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will 
send your request to the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods 
of compliance, contact David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 
FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-
4129; facsimile: (316)
    946-4107; e-mail: david.ostrodka@faa.gov.

[[Page 35388]]

May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD?

    (g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact 
Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; 
telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140. To view the AD docket, go 
to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, 
or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket 
No. FAA-2005-21410; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-31-AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 14, 2005.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-12060 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P