Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36/A36, A36TC/B36TC, 45, 50, 55, 56, 58, 58P, 58TC, 60, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 88, and 95 Series Airplanes

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42855-42856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17622]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 12, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 42855]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98-CE-61-AD; Amendment 39-11061; AD 99-05-13]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech 17, 18, 
19, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36/A36, A36TC/B36TC, 45, 50, 55, 56, 58, 58P, 58TC, 
60, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 88, and 95 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment withdraws Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99-05-
13, which currently applies to Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) 
Beech 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36/A36, A36TC/B36TC, 45, 50, 55, 56, 
58, 58P, 58TC, 60, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 88, and 95 series airplanes. AD 
99-05-13 requires installing a placard on the fuel tank selector to 
warn of the no-flow condition that exists between the fuel tank 
detents. Since the issuance of AD 99-05-13, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) has re-evaluated all information related to this 
subject, and determined that the subject matter in this AD is an 
operational issue and does not address an unsafe condition. 
Accordingly, this action withdraws AD 99-05-13.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Pretz, Aerospace Engineer, 
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-
Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4153; 
facsimile: (316) 946-4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

Has FAA Taken Any Action to This Point?

    Reports of engine stoppage on Raytheon Beech 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 
33, 35, 36/A36, A36TC/B36TC, 45, 50, 55, 56, 58, 58P, 58TC, 60, 65, 70, 
76, 77, 80, 88, and 95 series airplanes caused FAA to issue AD 99-05-
13, Amendment 39-11061 (64 FR 10560, March 5, 1999). AD 99-05-13 
currently requires installing a placard on the fuel tank selector to 
warn of the no-flow condition that exists between the fuel tank 
detents.
    After issuing AD 99-05-13, we re-evaluated all information related 
to the subject matter of this AD and determined that:
    <bullet> The positioning of the fuel selector is an operational 
issue and not an unsafe condition under part 39 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) and should be handled by other methods;
    <bullet> Normal operating and procedural information such as this 
should be handled through regular revisions to the Airplane Flight 
Manual (AFM) or Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH); and
    <bullet> Issuing an AD to require a placard that conveys normal 
operating information reduces the pilots' sensitivity to true emergency 
information that should be conveyed by placards.
    Consequently, FAA issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to withdraw AD 99-05-13. This 
proposal published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) on March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16845).

Was the Public Invited to Comment?

    The FAA invited interested persons to participate in the making of 
this amendment. The following describes each comment and presents FAA's 
response.

Comment Issue No. 1: AD is Valid if an Unsafe Condition Exists

What is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that FAA is withdrawing this AD because it is 
an operational issue and should be handled by other methods. The 
commenter believes that the AD is valid because FAA has the authority 
to issue an AD on any issue as long as an unsafe condition exists.

What is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We concur that we have the authority and responsibility to act on 
an unsafe condition, regardless of the factors that create the unsafe 
condition. We were in error in including information in the NPRM 
specifying that an operational procedure cannot be the subject of an 
AD. However, we determined that the fuel selector valve, when 
functioning properly and used properly, does not create an unsafe 
condition. The FAA determined that the procedures to operate the fuel 
selector valve are readily available and that our authority is not to 
issue AD's against aircraft where the operators do not operate the 
equipment correctly. Utilizing positive detent to assure that the fuel 
valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard 
design practice in the aircraft industry.
    We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 2: AD is Needed for Airplanes Without an AFM/POH

What is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that many airplanes currently affected by AD 
99-05-13 are not required to have a POH, and Civil Aviation Regulations 
(CAR) part 3 allows a manufacturer to use placards instead of an AFM. 
The commenter believes that, for these reasons, the AD is valid.

What is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We concur that many aircraft do not require a POH and were 
certificated under CAR part 3 where the use of placards is acceptable 
over an AFM. However, airplanes in this situation usually only have 
placards installed that contain safety information when an unusual 
design, operating, or handling characteristic is prevalent.
    The FAA has the authority to issue an AD to require operational 
placards. However, as discussed above, utilizing a positive detent to 
assure that the fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is 
considered a standard design practice in the aircraft industry.
    We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 3: Placards Are Necessary to Convey Safe 
Operation

What is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that the AD is valid because placards are 
necessary to

[[Page 42856]]

convey safe operation for airplanes certificated under the Civil 
Aviation Regulations and part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 
(14 CFR part 23). The commenter also states that placards should not be 
limited to only emergency information.

What is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We concur that placards are not just limited to emergency 
information. All required placards should convey information for safe 
operation. However, both CAR 3.777/3.777-1 and 14 CFR 23.1541 state 
that placards should convey safe operation information if the aircraft 
has unusual design, operation, or handling characteristics. As 
discussed previously, utilizing a positive detent to assure that the 
fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard 
design practice in the aircraft industry.
    We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 4: FAA Has Changed the Definition of Unsafe 
Condition

What is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that, by withdrawing AD 99-05-13, FAA will 
have changed the historical definition of an unsafe condition. We infer 
that the commenter wants to maintain the effectiveness of AD 99-05-13.

What is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We do not concur that we have altered the definition of an unsafe 
condition. Determination of an unsafe condition is based on each 
individual situation. Factors that are considered include the design, 
operation, or handling characteristics of the type design airplanes. As 
discussed above, utilizing a positive detent to assure that the fuel 
valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard 
design practice in the aircraft industry.
    We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 5: Numerous Occurrences Justify the Current AD

What is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that placing a warning placard specifying the 
safe operation of the fuel selector as AD 99-05-13 requires supports 
the 49 occurrences from the records of the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB). We infer that the commenter wants to maintain the 
effectiveness of AD 99-05-13.

What is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We do not concur with the commenter's assessment. We have reviewed 
37 reports of the above-referenced 49 occurrences (commenter only 
provided 37). Approximately half of the occurrences listed the cause as 
fuel starvation in combination with the fuel selector not positioned in 
the detent. The most prevalent cause was failure to follow checklist 
procedures. In no instance was the pilot's lack of knowledge or 
understanding of the positioning of the fuel selector listed as the 
cause of the occurrence.
    In addition, NTSB has not recommended that FAA issue an AD on this 
subject. Therefore, we conclude that the commenter believes NTSB 
supports the placard requirement, when in fact, NTSB has made no 
recommendation supporting it. Again, utilizing a positive detent to 
assure that the fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is 
considered a standard design practice in the aircraft industry.
    We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

The FAA's Determination

What is FAA's Final Determination on This Issue?

    Based on the above information, FAA has determined that there is no 
need for AD 99-05-13 and that it should be withdrawn.
    This action withdraws AD 99-05-13. Withdrawal of AD 99-05-13 will 
not preclude us from issuing another notice in the future, nor will it 
commit us to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an AD, it is not an AD and, 
therefore, is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 
11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, FAA withdraws AD 99-05-13, Amendment 39-11061 (64 FR 
10560, March 5, 1999).

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 5, 2000.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 00-17622 Filed 7-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U

The complete text was extracted from the official GovInfo HTML edition for this publication. Acquired 2026-10-09T04:38:13.321712+00:00. Text extraction preserves the recorded source wording; it does not determine current requirements.

Open the captured official edition

Source SHA-256

549fa2c012f1cea375e04da9bda0a09a4704378fdffd7981bce4b9462da465ae

Text SHA-256

d15eec89e670ec701dd4c10dfd30f9e07c1f3a65b122a69ee8ac02571ac9ce51