[Federal Register: October 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57850-57854]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11oc07-5]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-21175; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD;
Amendment 39-15220; AD 2007-21-02]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Models 58P
and 58TC Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) Models 58P and 58TC airplanes that were
used as lead airplanes by the United States Forest Service (USFS). This
AD establishes new limits for the structural life of the airframe
(wing, fuselage, empennage, and associated structure) through the
incorporation of a supplement to the Limitations Section of the pilot's
operating handbook and airplane flight manual (POH/AFM). This AD
results from the FAA's analysis and determination that the operational
history and usage of the affected airplanes requires a reduction in the
structural life limit to 4,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) for the
airframe (wing, fuselage, empennage, and associated structure). We are
issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airframe (wing,
fuselage, empennage, or associated structure) based on the operational
history and usage of the affected airplanes. Such failure could lead to
loss of control.
DATE: This AD becomes effective on November 15, 2007.
ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD,
contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas
67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140.
To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA-2005-21175; Directorate
Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; fax: (316) 946-4107.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
On November 16, 2005, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain RAC Models 58P and 58TC airplanes that were used
as lead airplanes by the USFS. This proposal was published in the
Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November
22, 2005 (70 FR 70555). The NPRM proposed to establish new limits for
the structural life of the airframe (wing, fuselage, empennage, and
associated structure) through the incorporation of a new supplement
into the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM; and require the disposal
of the life-limited airframe following 14 CFR 43.10 when the structural
life limit of the airframe is reached.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.
[[Page 57851]]
Comment Issue No. 1: Public Use Aircraft
Four commenters, including Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C.
(referred to after this as ``Winstead''), discuss the use of these
airplanes in public aircraft operations. These airplanes were
previously used in public aircraft operations by the USFS. We infer
that the commenters request approval to use these airplanes in public
aircraft operations beyond the life limits of 4,500 hours TIS.
When these airplanes were operated solely as public aircraft, they
were exempt from many FAA regulations. However, since some of these
airplanes may now be utilized as civil aircraft, the FAA has the
responsibility to oversee the continued operational safety of these
airplanes. The FAA must take into account the operational history and
past usage of the airplanes. We do not agree that these airplanes
should be exempt from the 4,500-hour TIS life limit because the
airplanes could still be used as civil aircraft. Any time the airplane
is used as a civil aircraft, the 4,500-hour TIS life limit will apply.
Airplanes used in public aircraft operations are exempt from many
FAA regulations. However, these exemptions only apply when the airplane
is operated in a public aircraft capacity. Advisory Circular (AC) 00-
1.1, Government Aircraft Operations, reads:
The status of an aircraft as ``public aircraft'' or ``civil
aircraft'' depends on its use in government service and the type of
operation that the aircraft is conducting at the time. Rather than
speaking of particular aircraft as public aircraft or civil
aircraft, it is more precise to speak of particular operations as
public or civil in nature. Example: An aircraft owned by a state
government is used in the morning for a search and rescue mission.
During the search and rescue operation, the aircraft is a public
aircraft. Later that same day, however, the aircraft is used to fly
the governor of the state from one meeting to another. At that time,
the aircraft loses its public aircraft status and must be operated
as a civil aircraft.
AC 00-1.1, Government Aircraft Operations, is available for review
in its entirety at http://www.airweb.faa.gov.
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 91) prohibits a pilot
from operating a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
AC 00-1.1 also addresses this subject:
[Federal Aviation Regulations] part 91 prohibits a pilot from
operating a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
The pilot in command (PIC) is responsible for determining whether
the aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The PIC is required to
terminate the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or
structural conditions occur. In addition, the PIC may not operate
the aircraft without complying with the operating limitations
specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual,
markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry.
So in the above example, although the aircraft may be primarily
used in public operation, it is used as a civil aircraft also.
Therefore, the pilot must assure the airplane operated as a civil
aircraft is in an airworthy condition, which would include all ADs,
limitations, life limits, and other mandated requirements.
There may be cases where an airplane is used solely in public
operations. Although aircraft used in public operations are generally
exempt from compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations, the
safety implications of the structural fatigue life (4,500 hours TIS) of
the airframe are serious. Therefore, we strongly recommend operators of
public-use-only aircraft comply with the structural fatigue life (4,500
hours TIS) of the airframe. We are adding a note to the Compliance
section reiterating our concern and this recommendation.
We will not make any changes to the final rule AD based on these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 2: Withdraw the NPRM, Suspend AD Action, and Reject
the Reduced Life Limits
Four commenters, including the Charlotte County (Florida) Sheriff's
Office, state that the FAA should withdraw the NPRM, suspend the AD
action, and reject the reduced life limits established by RAC.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters. Airplanes certificated under
the safe life regulations have a structural fatigue life limit based on
the results of fatigue testing, fatigue analysis, and flight strain
surveys. The structural fatigue life limits are determined by the
mission profile and mission mix, flight length, number of ground-air-
ground cycles, overall usage, and the severity of the fatigue spectrum.
Utilizing the above criteria, the FAA has determined that the
structural fatigue life of these 21 airplanes, which have been operated
in a severe spectrum, must be reduced to 4,500 hours TIS. As stated
earlier, we analyzed the past usage of the airplanes while under the
responsibility of the USFS in making this determination.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 3: The FAA Has Not Supplied Evidence That Shows the
Need for AD Action and the FAA Should Disclose All Data
Five commenters, including Winstead, Charlotte County Sheriff's
Department, Texas Firebirds, Down East Emergency Medicine Institute,
and Merced County Mosquito Abatement District (all operators of
affected airplanes), state that the FAA has not supplied evidence that
shows the need for AD action and that the FAA should disclose all data.
The commenters also state that, based on their analysis of the service
difficulty reports (SDRs), there is not a need for the reduced fatigue
structural life.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters. Establishing a structural
fatigue life is not based solely on incidents/accidents. It is based on
the evaluation of the mission profile and mission mix, flight length,
the number of ground-air-ground cycles, the overall usage, and
specifically in this case the severity of the fatigue spectrum. As
stated earlier, these 21 airplanes were operated in a severe fatigue
spectrum while under the responsibility of the USFS, and, now that the
airplanes are in civil use, the FAA must analyze this past usage in
making a decision on the structural fatigue life. SDRs are only one
area the FAA evaluates in determining whether regulatory action is
necessary to address safety. We agree that the SDR database alone would
not justify the reduced life limit. However, when we consider the SDRs
and the criteria described previously, especially the severe fatigue
spectrum operations, continued operation of any of the 21 airplanes
over 4,500 hours TIS would be unsafe. The FAA used the analysis of
proprietary data from the type certificate holder. We are not allowed
to include proprietary data in the public docket. All applicable data
considered to be in the public domain is in the public docket.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 4: FAA Policy on Reduction of Airframe Structural
Fatigue Life Limits
One commenter, Dr. Robert M. Bowie, requests the FAA's policy on
reducing the airframe structural fatigue life limits.
The FAA may decide to lower the life limits for airplanes subjected
to severe usage. This occurs when the FAA learns of airplanes that are
used significantly outside the fatigue spectrum used to establish the
life limits. This more severe spectrum usage includes differences in
the mission profile and
[[Page 57852]]
mission mix, flight length, the number of ground-air-ground cycles, and
the overall usage.
When the FAA determines that a structural life limit must be
reduced to address an unsafe condition, an AD is the only way to
legally enforce the life limit. Section 14, paragraph 152 on page 109
of the Airworthiness Directives Manual FAA-IR-M-8040.1A (FAA-AIR-M-
8040.1) is clear on this:
a. General. Airworthiness Directives that apply more restrictive
life limits to products are issued when the current life limits
contribute to an unsafe condition. Note that a change to a life
limit appearing only in a manual or on type certificate data sheets,
even if FAA-approved, does not require compliance by the pilot or
operator (although the FAA encourages that known limits be taken
into consideration). To be LEGALLY required, the change must be made
through an AD.
We are not making any changes to the final rule AD based on these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 5: Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC)
Five commenters, including Winstead, state that the FAA should
approve an AMOC for the AD action, specifically a repetitive inspection
program. However, no commenter provides the data to substantiate an
AMOC.
This AD, like most ADs, includes provisions for approval of AMOCs.
The AD and 14 CFR 39.19 include procedures for applying for an AMOC.
Part of these procedures is providing substantiating data that shows to
the FAA the method is acceptable for addressing the unsafe condition.
In this case, an AMOC that requests approval of a repetitive inspection
program would need to address the damage tolerance of the structure.
Typically, fracture mechanics-based methods that account for residual
strength and crack propagation would address the unsafe condition and
be found acceptable. Inspection methods must demonstrate the ability to
reliably detect cracks before they grow to a critical size.
As in any AD where AMOC requests are acceptable, the FAA will
evaluate any request for an AMOC that is submitted following the proper
procedures. The proposal should contain the appropriate data that shows
it addresses the unsafe condition. The FAA will evaluate the proposal
based on the above criteria and determine whether it provides an
acceptable level of safety. If it does, then we will approve the AMOC.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 6: Government Buy-Back and Loss of Airplane Warranty
Three commenters, including John Ford, discuss a government buy-
back of these airplanes and the applicability of the manufacturer's
warranty. We conclude that the commenters request the government buy-
back these airplanes and/or the manufacturer apply warranty coverage
for the loss of the airplanes.
We understand that the entities that operate these aircraft have a
concern with the government aircraft surplus process. However, the FAA
has no authority to enter into any buy-back agreements.
Concerning the loss of airplane warranty, typically, the
manufacturer's service information lists the required parts costs that
are covered under warranty. This would mean that no charges or cost
would be incurred by an airplane operator. However, in this case, there
is no warranty involved. All of these airplanes were produced before
1985. The FAA has no control over warranty coverage for the affected
parties; some parties may incur higher costs than the estimates here.
We are not making any changes to the final rule AD based on these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 7: Economic Impact
Four commenters, including the Sarasota County (Florida) Sheriff's
Office, note that this AD action will have a severe economic impact on
the operators of the affected airplanes.
Because this AD will reduce the certificated life limit of the 21
airplanes utilized in a severe fatigue spectrum while under the
responsibility of the USFS, the FAA recognizes that the AD will have an
economic impact on those who currently use the airplanes. However, the
FAA has determined that the safety implications of allowing these
airplanes to continue to fly outweigh the economic impact that the AD
would have on the affected operators of these airplanes.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 8: Executive Orders, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
Small Business Administration Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996
Two commenters, including the Down East Emergency Medical
Institute, contend that the FAA violated several executive orders, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Small Business Administration
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. They also suggest that an
independent outside legal review be performed.
The FAA completed a regulatory evaluation to ensure that the
proposed AD action met applicable executive orders; the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; and other policies, procedures, and orders. We have
included a description of the findings for this regulatory evaluation
in the section entitled Regulatory Flexibility Determination. The FAA
does not obtain independent outside legal reviews of AD actions. If the
commenters desire such a review, then they may have such a review done
at their expense.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 9: Extend (Reopen) the Comment Period for the NPRM
and Hold a Public Meeting
Six commenters, including the Texas Firebirds, request an extension
of the comment period beyond the approximately 60 days provided by the
NPRM and one commenter, Winstead, requests a public meeting with the
FAA to discuss this AD action. The requests for extension range from an
unspecified number of days to an additional 120 days. The majority of
these commenters noted that the comment period coincided with the
holidays that occur in November, December, and January.
The FAA believes the DOT/FAA standard public comment period of 60
days provided adequate opportunity for public input. We will continue
to evaluate the need for a public meeting. However, we do not believe
the AD action should be further delayed by reopening the comment period
or holding a public meeting.
If, after the AD is issued, individuals present specific ideas that
they feel need to be more fully addressed, the FAA will evaluate these
ideas. Of specific interest would be alternative solutions to address
the unsafe condition.
We are not reopening the comment period, holding a public meeting
at this time, or changing the final rule AD action as a result of these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 10: Agreement With FAA on This Airworthiness Action
Three commenters, one of which is National Flight Services, made
comments that they generally agree with this AD action. They request no
specific change to the AD.
Conclusion
We have also determined that the requirement proposed in the NPRM
to dispose of the life-limited parts is not necessary by AD action. 14
CFR 43.10 requires that anyone who removes a life-limited part from an
airplane ensure that the part is controlled using one of
[[Page 57853]]
the methods in paragraph (c) of the regulation. This includes a
recordkeeping system, tag or record attached to part, non-permanent
marking, permanent marking, segregation, mutilation, or other methods.
This AD establishes the airframe structural life limit of the affected
airplanes. Anyone removing the life-limited airframe (wing, fuselage,
empennage, and associated structure) from one of the affected airplanes
is obligated by 14 CFR 43.10 to control the part once it is removed.
Therefore, it is not necessary to require this through AD action. We
have included a Note in the AD.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for removing the life-limited parts disposal requirement from
the AD and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that this
removal of the disposal requirement and the minor corrections:
Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 21 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the cost to incorporate the RAC Beechcraft POH/AFM
Supplement into the POH/AFM to be $80 per airplane (1 work-hour x $80
per hour labor cost), for a total of $1,680 for U.S. operators.
However, the POH/AFM supplement is life-limiting the structural
airframe. The U.S. Government distributed the airplanes at no cost to
the states, retaining title for five years, which have not passed.
Therefore, the cost impact would consist of any costs of transfer from
the state and the cost of any modifications the operators have
incurred. We have no way of determining the cost of transfer for each
airplane and the cost of any modifications that operators have made to
the airplanes.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.
To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required. The FAA did make such a determination for this AD. The
basis for this determination is now discussed.
Small entities are identified using standards from the Small
Business Administration (SBA) for Small Governmental Jurisdictions and
Small Organizations. These standards define a Small Governmental
Jurisdiction as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand. These standards also define a Small
Organization as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
There were 21 Beech Barons available for distribution by the Forest
Service. Of these 21 airplanes, 1 was destroyed in an accident. Of the
remaining 20 airplanes, 4 were distributed to U.S. government agencies;
8 were distributed to states or state agencies; 6 were distributed to
local governments; 1 was distributed to a non-profit agency; and 1 is
unaccounted for. Of these agencies, one local government and one non-
profit agency would qualify as small entities. Therefore, this final AD
will not adversely affect a large number of small entities.
It should be noted that the agencies receiving these airplanes do
not receive title to the airplanes for a five-year period. None of
these agencies have had any of these airplanes for a five-year period.
Until the agencies receive title to these airplanes, the airplanes
remain the property of the United States government.
We received one comment discussing the effect of the proposed AD on
small entities. However, as discussed above, this final AD will not
adversely affect a large number of small entities. Therefore, the FAA
Administrator certifies that this rule will not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Authority for This Rulemaking
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
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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 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 ``Docket
No. FAA-2005-21175; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD'' in your
request.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
[[Page 57854]]
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under 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
0
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]
0
2. FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:
2007-21-02 Raytheon Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-15220; Docket No.
FAA-2005-21175; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective on November 15, 2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Models 58P and 58TC airplanes, with the
following serial numbers: TJ-177, TJ-178, TJ-180, TJ-211, TJ-213,
TJ-247, TJ-284, TJ-285, TJ-289, TJ-290, TJ-314, TJ-322, TJ-367, TJ-
368, TJ-370, TJ-371, TJ-425, TJ-426, TJ-433, TJ-442, and TK-33, that
are certificated in any category. These airplanes were used as lead
airplanes by the United States Forest Service for firefighting
missions.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD is the result of the FAA's analysis and
determination that the operational history and usage of the affected
airplanes requires a reduction in the structural life limit to 4,500
hours time-in-service (TIS) for the airframe (wing, fuselage,
empennage, and associated structure). The actions specified in this
AD are intended to prevent structural failure of the airframe (wing,
fuselage, empennage, or associated structure) based on the
operational history and usage of the affected airplanes. Such
failure could lead to loss of control.
Compliance
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Compliance Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Insert the Raytheon Upon the Any person holding
Model 58P/58PA and Model accumulation of at least a private
58TC/58TCA POH/AFM 4,500 hours TIS on pilot certificate
Supplement, part number (P/ the airframe (wing, as authorized by
N) 102-590000-67, issued fuselage, section 43.7 of the
January 2005, into the empennage, or Federal Aviation
Limitations Section of associated Regulations (14 CFR
pilot's operating handbook structure) or 43.7) may modify
(POH)/airplane flight before further the POH/AFM as
manual (AFM) (P/N 102- flight after specified in
590000-41 or 106-590000-5). November 15, 2007 paragraph (e)(1) of
The POH/AFM Supplement (the effective date this AD. Make an
limits the structural of this AD), entry into the
fatigue life of the whichever occurs aircraft records
airframe (wing, fuselage, later, unless showing compliance
empennage, and associated already done. with this portion
structure) to 4,500 hours of the AD following
TIS. section 43.9 of the
Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR
43.9).
(2) Do not operate any As of November 15, Not Applicable.
Models 58P and 58TC 2007 (the effective
airplanes (with any serial date of this AD).
number noted in paragraph
(c) of this AD) upon the
accumulation of 4,500 hours
TIS on the airframe (wing,
fuselage, empennage, or
associated structure) or
before further flight,
whichever occurs later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: 14 CFR 43.10 requires anyone who removes a life-limited
part from an airplane to ensure that the part is controlled using
one of the methods in paragraph (c) of the regulation. This includes
a recordkeeping system, tag or record attached to part, non-
permanent marking, permanent marking, segregation, mutilation, or
other methods. This AD establishes the structural life limit of the
affected airplanes. Anyone removing the life-limited airframe (wing,
fuselage, empennage, and associated structure) from one of the
affected airplanes is obligated by 14 CFR 43.10 to control the part
once it is removed.
Note 2: Although aircraft used in public operations are
generally exempt from compliance with the Federal Aviation
Regulations, the safety implications of the structural fatigue life
(4,500 hours TIS) of the airframe are serious. Therefore, we
strongly recommend operators of public-use-only aircraft comply with
the structural fatigue life (4,500 hours TIS) of the airframe.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Steve Potter, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; fax: (316) 946-
4107. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
Related Information
(g) You may obtain the service information referenced in this AD
from Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas
67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140. To view the
AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA-2005-21175; Directorate
Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 3, 2007.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-19888 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P