[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19170-19174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9874]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-92-AD; Amendment 39-10468; AD 98-08-19]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation
500, 600, and 700 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to all Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation (Twin Commander)
500, 600, and 700 series airplanes. This AD requires installing access
holes in both wing leading edges and repetitively inspecting the
forward attach brackets and straps for cracks. Reports of cracks in the
wing to fuselage attachment brackets and straps, wing station (WS) 24,
and fuselage frames prompted this action. The actions specified by this
AD are intended to detect cracks at the wing to fuselage attach points,
which, if not detected and corrected, could cause structural failure
and loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Effective May 18, 1998.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 18, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation, P. O. Box 3369, Arlington,
Washington, 98223; telephone (360) 435-9797; facsimile: (360) 435-1112.
This information may also be examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-92-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: Jeffrey Morfitt, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Ave. S.W.,
Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2595; facsimile
(425) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Events Leading to the Issuance of This AD
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to Twin Commander 500,
600, and 700 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register as
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 19, 1997, (62 FR
44096). The NPRM was the result of reports of cracks in the wing to
fuselage attachment brackets and straps, wing station (WS) 24, and
fuselage frames. The NPRM proposed to require:
[[Page 19171]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I......... Installing access If cracked, prior If no cracks,
holes in left to further repeat the
and right wing flight, inspection at
leading edges replacing the regular
and inspecting brackets and intervals until
the forward straps or cracks are
attach brackets repairing the found, then
and straps for part with an accomplish Part
cracks. approved repair II.
For any airplanes scheme. Then
that have wings accomplish Part
modified with II of this AD.
titanium leading
edges through an
STC, remove the
wing root
farings to
accomplish the
required
inspections, in
lieu of
installing the
access holes.
Part II........ Inspecting for If cracked, prior After repairing
cracks on both to further or replacing the
wing leading flight, damaged part,
edge closeouts, replacing any continuing to
upper & lower cracked part or inspect at
return flange repairing the regular
radius, fuselage part with an intervals.
frame where tee approved repair
bracket scheme.
attaches,
inboard side of
attached bracket
and frame tee
bracket.
Part III....... Inspecting If cracked, prior If no cracks,
fuselage station to further repeating the
(f.s.) 100 for flight, inspection at
cracks. repairing with regular
an approved intervals until
repair scheme, cracks are
and continuing found, then
to inspect at accomplishing
regular Part III B of
intervals. this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accomplishment of the proposed action as specified in the NPRM
would be in accordance with the Compliance section and Part I, II, and
III of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS sections of Twin Commander
Aircraft Corporation (Twin Commander) Service Bulletin (SB) No. 223,
dated October 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated May
8, 1997 and Revision Notice No. 2, dated August 18, 1997.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Several comments were received in
response to the proposed action. Due consideration has been given to
the following comments.
Turbine Engine Versus Reciprocating Engine Models
One commenter opposes the AD for reciprocating engine powered
models. The commenter asks if turbine models have different loads than
reciprocating engine powered models, suggesting that the AD should
apply only to turbine models.
The FAA does not concur. The type of powerplant is not relevant.
However, the turbine models are pressurized, which affects the
configuration of the structure, and service reports indicate
pressurization does affect cracking in the fitting. This effect is
accounted for in the compliance times for Part III of the service
bulletin. Cracks have been discovered in both pressurized and non-
pressurized airplanes and in every structural configuration present in
the airplane models listed in the proposed AD. The final rule will not
change as a result of this comment.
Low Level Survey Versus Non-Survey Operations
Two commenters oppose the proposed action for airplanes that are
not used for low level survey operations. The commenters ask if the
airplanes found cracked are engaged in low level survey operations,
suggesting that the proposed action apply only to airplanes operated in
such a manner.
The FAA does not concur. FAA data indicates that 6 of 47 airplanes
inspected were in survey operations for a portion of their total hours
of operation. All six showed cracking. The data indicates that 24
additional airplanes were found cracked. These airplanes were not
engaged in survey operations for a significant portion of their total
hours of operation. The service data supports the need for the proposed
action regardless of whether the affected airplane is used in a low
level survey type operation. The final rule will not change as a result
of this comment.
Evidence of an Unsafe Condition
One commenter suggests that there is insufficient evidence of an
unsafe condition to justify the proposed action. The commenter asks if
the basis for this action was the 1978 Calumet, Oklahoma accident
involving an in-flight structural breakup, suggesting that one accident
that occurred 19 years ago does not justify an AD.
The FAA does not concur. While this accident is a source of
concern, there is more evidence that an unsafe condition exists. There
have been 14 other in-flight breakups that involved leading edge
failures, as well as 8 incidents involving in-flight damage to the wing
leading edge. One other accident is currently under investigation by
the National Transportation Safety Board. These accidents and incidents
demonstrate the critical nature of the leading edge on these airplane
models. The numerous reports of cracking (63 percent of the inspected
airplanes) indicate that an unsafe condition exists. The final rule
will not change as a result of this comment.
Cracks Due To Poorly Manufactured or Improperly Installed Parts
One commenter suggests that the cracks found in the bracket were
due to overload during installation. The commenter asks the FAA to
conduct a metallurgical analysis of the cracked parts.
The FAA does not concur. A metallurgical analysis has been
conducted that shows that the crack propagation was fatigue, not
installation overload. A developmental problem resulted in some early
parts that did not fit correctly. However, the manufacturing process
has been refined so that the fit problem has been alleviated. The final
rule will not change as a result of this comment.
Airplanes Equipped With Titanium Leading Edges
One commentor suggests that the proposed action be changed to allow
alternative inspection techniques that would not necessitate installing
the access doors in airplanes that have a titanium leading edge
modification for flight into known icing conditions, or exempt these
airplanes from the proposed action entirely. The commenter states that
the titanium leading edges installed per Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) on 23 of his airplanes cannot be modified as required by the
service bulletin. The commenter also states that the leading edge
modifications per this STC would add significant strength to the
leading edge, suggesting that airplanes so equipped would not be
susceptible to cracking.
[[Page 19172]]
The FAA partially concurs. The effect of the leading edge
modification on the cracking, which is the subject of this AD, is
unknown. However, stiffening of the leading edge could increase the
load in the attachment bracket, thereby aggravating the situation. The
unsafe condition is therefore likely to exist in airplanes with the
titanium leading edges, and these airplanes should be included in the
proposed action.
The leading edge access doors are installed to make the required
inspections easier and less time consuming. The leading edge
modification installed on the commenter's airplanes is unique. Because
of the small number of airplanes affected by this modification, the FAA
can address the requests for alternative methods of compliance, as
necessary.
The FAA has also changed the requirement for gaining access to the
wing leading edges for airplanes with wings modified by an STC with
titanium leading edges. For these airplanes, the wing root farings can
be removed to accomplish the inspections for cracks.
The final rule will reflect these changes.
Need for Terminating Action
One commenter suggests that the proposed action be changed to
include a modification that terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements.
The FAA partially agrees. A modification to the airplane to
terminate the repetitive inspections that are proposed would be
desirable. However, neither the manufacturer, nor any other party has
proposed a permanent fix to the cracking. The unsafe condition
necessitates that the proposed action be taken at this time. If a
terminating action should become available in the future, the FAA would
incorporate it into a superseding AD. The final rule will not change as
a result of this comment.
Work To Be Done at a Twin Commander Service Center
One commenter states that the service bulletin recommends that the
work be done at a Twin Commander service center which could be
difficult to schedule, given the limited service centers and the number
of airplanes affected. The commenter states that requiring the
modification be accomplished at these Twin Commander service centers
would be a hardship for some owners.
The FAA partially agrees that it may be difficult for all of the
owners/operators to schedule the work at a Twin Commander service
center. Revision Notice No. 1 is included in the service bulletin that
is incorporated by reference into the proposed action. This revision
clarifies that it is recommended by the manufacturer, but not required,
that the work be done by a Twin Commander service center. The final
rule will not change as a result of this comment.
Projected Cost Impact Unrealistically Low
One commenter argues that the economic analysis reflected the cost
per side, not the total cost and that the total cost quoted was
unrealistically low.
The FAA does not concur. The type certificate holder verified that
the hours quoted were for the entire airplane, not one side. The total
inspection hours are based on two prototype installations. The cost
impact provided in the NPRM presents a conservative estimate of the
time required for a mechanic to install two access doors and conduct a
dye penetrant inspection. There will be additional cost if the
inspection turns up cracked fittings or leading edge ribs. The
additional cost of repairing damaged wing structure found by the
inspections cannot be determined, since it depends on the magnitude of
the damage found and the repair technique used. The final rule will not
change as a result of this comment.
The FAA's Determination
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, including the related service information, the
FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed, except for the changes discussed
above and minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that
these changes and minor corrections will not change the meaning of the
AD and will not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 1,464 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 82 workhours for
PART I; 100 workhours for PART II (if required); and 7 workhours for
PART III per airplane (if required) to accomplish this action. The
average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost
approximately $410 for PART I and approximately $450 for PART II (if
required) per airplane. Based on these figures, the total cost impact
for PART I will be $5,330 per airplane, PART II (if required) will be
$6,450 per airplane, and PART III will be $420 per airplane (if
required). The U.S. fleet cost is estimated to be $11,127,650, or
$5,950 per airplane if no damage is found; and $23,021,400 for the U.S.
fleet, or $12,200 per airplane if damage is found. For purposes of
estimating the cost of this AD, the FAA is presuming that none of the
owners/operators have had any of the actions accomplished on any of the
affected airplanes. In addition, the cost impact does not take into
consideration the costs of the repetitive inspections. The FAA has no
way of determining the number of repetitive inspections that may be
incurred over the life of the airplane.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Economic Analysis
Because the estimated cost for the inspection and possible repairs
are expensive, the FAA conducted a Cost Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Determination and Analysis for this AD.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to assure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires
agencies to review rules that may have a ``significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities,'' and, in cases where they
would, to conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in which
alternative actions are considered.
FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance,
defines ``significant economic impact'' as an annualized net compliance
cost, adjusted for inflation, which is greater than a threshold cost
level for defined entity types. A ``substantial number'' is defined as
a number that is at least eleven and that is more than one-third of the
small entities subject to a rule, or any number of small entities
subject to a rule which is substantial in the judgment of the
rulemaking official. ``Small entities'' are defined as small
businesses, small not-for-profit organizations which are independently
owned and operated, or airports operated by small governmental
jurisdictions.
With limited information available to airplane specific costs, a
range of per airplane costs can be estimated by constructing
hypothetical low-and high-cost scenarios. These scenarios are based on
three general presumptions: first, that these airplanes have
accumulated 6,000 hours TIS and are subject to this AD within the next
100 hours TIS; second, that all of these airplanes are at the minimum
and maximum extremes of annual TIS (200 or 300 hours) with a remaining
[[Page 19173]]
operating life of 10 and 20 years, and the extent of cracking is
unknown (no cracking or cracking in the inspected areas); and third,
that these airplanes are of the model types incurring either the lowest
or highest costs.
The total low-cost scenario in 1997 dollars will be $5,570 ($4,805
discounted) per airplane over 10 years, with $5,330 of the costs
incurred in the first year. The annualized cost (again over 10 years)
will be $641 per airplane.
The total high-cost scenario in 1997 dollars will be $25,285 per
airplane ($16,487 discounted) over 30 years, with $15,865 of the costs
incurred in the first year. The annualized cost (again over 30 years)
will be $1,556.
This AD will affect approximately 1,464 airplanes, of which 366 are
owned by individuals, 38 are owned by federal and state agencies, and
847 are owned by 697 separate entities. Of the 697 entities, one entity
owns 28 airplanes, three entities own between 10 and 12 airplanes,
nineteen separate entities own between 3 and 9 airplanes, thirty-two
entities own 2 airplanes, and six-hundred forty-two entities own 1
airplane each. The FAA cannot determine the size of all 697 owner
entities, or the type of business each entity is engaged in. The FAA
also cannot conclusively determine the costs of this AD. For
illustration purposes, it has been calculated that the AD will have
hypothetical annualized costs between $641 (the low-cost scenario) and
$1,556 (the high-cost scenario) per airplane. Due to the uncertainties
involved with these calculations, as well as with the ownership
information, no determinations can be made regarding ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
The FAA has considered three alternatives to this AD: (1) take no
federal action and rely on voluntary compliance with the Twin Commander
Service Bulletin No. 223. The FAA finds this alternative unacceptable
because of the consequences that could result, if the unsafe condition
is not eliminated; (2) mandate inspecting fewer parts, and at longer
intervals in the areas where the wings attach to the fuselage. This
alternative is unacceptable because less stringent inspections could
fail to locate cracking in key parts of the airplane for too long a
period of time; (3) defer Federal action pending review of additional
data to determine whether to require the specified inspections. This
alternative is unacceptable because evidence already exists of cracking
in the wing and fuselage at the attach points which would be considered
structural failure.
Consequently, the FAA is unable to conclusively make an economic
impact evaluation based on information available.
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) could have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
98-08-19 Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-10468;
Docket No. 95-CE-92-AD.
Applicability: Models 500, 500A, 500B, 500S, 500U, 520, 560,
560A, 560E, 560F, 680, 680E, 680F, 680FL, 680FLP, 680FP, 680T, 680V,
680W, 681, 685, 690, 690A, 690B, 690C, 690D, 695, 695A, 695B and 720
airplanes, all serial numbers, 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 (f) 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 in the body of this AD after
the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished.
To prevent cracks at the wing to fuselage attach points, which,
if not detected and corrected, could cause structural failure and
loss of control of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For all models except Models 520, 560, 690C and 695,
accomplish the actions in the following table in accordance with the
Compliance section and Part I, I, and III of the ACCOMPLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS sections of Twin Commander Service Bulletin No. 223,
dated October 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1, dated
May 8, 1997 and Revision Notice No. 2, dated August 18, 1997:
[[Page 19174]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I......... Upon the If cracked, prior If no cracks are
accumulation of to further found, repeat
6,000 hours flight, replace inspection at
total time-in- the brackets and 1,000 hour (hr.)
service (TIS) or straps or repair intervals until
within the next the part by an cracks are
100 hours TIS, approved repair found, replace
whichever occurs scheme (see the cracked part
later, install paragraph (b) of or repair by an
access holes in this AD). Then, approved repair
left and right accomplish PART scheme (see
wing leading II of this AD.. paragraph (b) of
edges and (Accomplish in this AD), then
inspect the accordance with accomplish PART
forward attach PART I of II.
brackets and Compliance (Accomplish in
straps for Section in Twin accordance with
cracks. Commander SB PART I of
For any airplanes 223, dated Oct. Compliance
that have wings 24, 1996 as Section in Twin
modified with amended by Commander SB
titanium leading Revision Notice 223, dated Oct.
edges through an No. 1, dated May 24, 1996 as
STC, remove the 8, 1997 and amended by
wing root Revision Notice Revision Notice
farings to No. 2, dated No. 1, dated May
accomplish the August 18, 8, 1997 and
required 1997.) Revision Notice
inspections, in No. 2, dated
lieu of August 18,
installing the 1997.)
access holes.
(Accomplish in
accordance with
PART I of
Compliance
Section in Twin
Commander SB
223, dated Oct.
24, 1996 as
amended by
Revision Notice
No. 1, dated May
8, 1997 and
Revision Notice
No. 2, dated
August 18,
1997.)
Part II........ Inspect for If cracked, prior After repair or
cracks at the to further replacement is
wing leading flight, replace accomplished,
edge close-outs, any cracked part continue to
upper & lower or repair the inspect at 6,000
return flange part with an hr. intervals.
radius, fuselage approved repair (Accomplish in
frame where tee scheme (see accordance with
bracket paragraph (b) of PART II of
attaches, this AD). If no Compliance
inboard side of cracks are Section in Twin
attach bracket found, continue Commander SB
and frame tee to repetitively 223, dated Oct.
bracket. inspect at 1,000 24, 1996 as
(Accomplish in hour TIS amended by
accordance with intervals. Revision Notice
PART II of (Accomplish in No. 1, dated May
Compliance accordance with 8, 1997 and
Section in Twin PART II of Revision Notice
Commander SB Compliance No. 2, dated
223, dated Oct. Section in Twin August 18,
24, 1996 as Commander SB 1997.)
amended by 223, dated Oct.
Revision Notice 24, 1996 as
No. 1, dated May amended by
8, 1997, and Revision Notice
Revision Notice No. 1, dated May
No. 2, dated 8, 1997 and
August 18, Revision Notice
1997.) No. 2, dated
August 18,
1997.)
Part III....... For pressurized If cracked, prior If no cracks,
airplanes, at to further repeat
6,000 hr. total flight, repair inspection at
TIS or within with an approved 1,000 hr.
the next 100 repair scheme intervals until
hours TIS (see paragraph cracks are
whichever occurs (b) of this AD), found, then
later, inspect and continue to accomplish PART
fuselage station inspect at 1,000 III B of this
(F.S.) 100 for hr. intervals. AD.
cracks. (Accomplish in (Accomplish in
For non- accordance with accordance with
pressurized PART III of PART III of
airplanes, at Compliance Compliance
12,000 hr. total Section in Twin Section in Twin
TIS or within Commander SB Commander SB
the next 100 223, dated Oct. 223, dated Oct.
hours TIS 24, 1996 as 24, 1996 as
whichever occurs amended by amended by
later, inspect Revision Notice Revision Notice
F.S. 100 for No. 1, dated May No. 1, dated May
cracks. 8, 1997 and 8, 1997 and
(Accomplish in Revision Notice Revison Notice
accordance with No. 2, dated No. 2, dated
PART III of August 18, August 18,
Compliance 1997.) 1997.)
Section in Twin
Commander SB
223, dated Oct.
24, 1996 as
amended by
Revision Notice
No. 1, dated May
8, 1997 and
Revision Notice
No. 2, dated
August 18,
1997.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Obtain a FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer
through the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office at
the address specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(c) For Twin Commander Models 520 and 560 airplanes, upon the
accumulation of 6,000 hours total TIS or within the next 100 hours
TIS, whichever occurs later, accomplish PART II of the table in
paragraph (a) of this AD. Accomplish PART III in accordance with the
compliance times in the above table of paragraph (a). These models
are excluded from the wing leading edge access hole installation in
PART I of the table in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(d) For Twin Commander Models 690C and 695 airplanes, accomplish
PARTS I and II in accordance with the compliance times in the above
table of paragraph (a). These Models are excluded from PART III of
the table in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(e) 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.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Ave. S.W., Renton, Washington,
98055-4056. The request shall be forwarded through an appropriate
FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to
the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office.
(g) The inspections and installations required by this AD shall
be done in accordance with the Twin Commander Service Bulletin No.
223, dated October 24, 1996 as amended by Revision Notice No. 1,
dated May 8, 1997 and Revision Notice No. 2, dated August 18, 1997.
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 Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation,
P.O. Box 3369, Arlington, Washington, 98223. Copies may be inspected
at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700,
Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on May 18, 1998.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 3, 1998.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certificate Service.
[FR Doc. 98-9874 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
