[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51709-51712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23811]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94-NM-211-AD; Amendment 39-9381; AD 95-20-03]


Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Model 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 
36, and 55 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive 
(AD), applicable to certain Learjet Model 24, 25, 31, 35, and 36 series 
airplanes, and all Learjet Model 28, 29, and 55 series airplanes, that 
currently requires a revision to the Limitations Section of the FAA-
approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to prohibit flight above an 
altitude of 41,000 feet. The actions specified by that AD are intended 
to limit the airplane operating altitude due to a possible failure of 
the outflow/safety valves, which could result in rapid decompression of 
the airplane. This amendment adds a requirement for replacement of 
certain outflow/safety valves, which, when accomplished, constitutes 
terminating action for the previously required AFM limitation.

DATES: Effective November 2, 1995.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications, as listed 
in the regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register 
as of November 2, 1995.
    The incorporation by reference of Allied Signal Aerospace Alert 
Service Bulletin 102850-21-A4021, Revision 2, dated October 6, 1994, as 
listed in the regulations, was approved previously by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of January 3, 1995 (59 FR 64844, December 16, 
1994).

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Allied Signal, Inc., Controls & Accessories, 11100 N. 
Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona 85737-9588; telephone (602) 469-1000; and 
Learjet, Inc., P.O. Box 7707, Wichita, Kansas 67277-7707. This 
information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, 
SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount 
Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Eierman, Aerospace Engineer, 
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 
Boulevard, Lakewood, California; 90712; telephone (310) 627-5336; fax 
(310) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 94-26-01, 
amendment 39-9097 (59 FR 64844, December 16, 1994), which is applicable 
to certain Learjet Model 24, 25, 31, 35, and 36 series airplanes, and 
all Learjet Model 28, 29, and 55 series airplanes, was published in the 
Federal Register on March 16, 1995 (60 FR 14231). The action proposed 
to continue to require a revision to the Limitations Section of the 
FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to prohibit flight above an 
altitude of 41,000 feet. The action also proposed to require 
replacement of certain outflow/safety valves, which, when accomplished, 
constitutes terminating action for the previously required AFM 
limitation.
    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.
    The only commenter, Learjet, Inc., requests that the AD be written 
as one AD against the outflow/safety valves, rather than against 
Learjet airplanes. The commenter believes this would better serve the 
public and that confusion would result if several AD's are issued 
against the various aircraft that use the affected valve. Learjet 
states that it is not customary to issue AD's against the aircraft for 
engine problems, seat belt buckles, or any other appliance that is used 
on more than one aircraft.
    The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA 
responds by noting that its general policy is that, when an unsafe 
condition results from the installation of an appliance or other item 
that is installed in only one particular make and model of aircraft, 
the AD is issued so that it is applicable to the aircraft, rather than 
the item. The reason for this is simple: Making the AD applicable to 
the airplane model on which the item is installed ensures that 
operators of those airplanes will be notified directly of the unsafe 
condition and the action required to correct it. While it is assumed 
that an operator will know the models of airplanes that it operates, 
there is a potential that the operator will not know or be aware of 
specific items that are installed on its airplanes. Therefore, calling 
out the airplane model as the subject of the AD prevents ``unknowing 
non-compliance'' on the part of the operator. The FAA recognizes that 
there are situations when an unsafe condition exists in an item that is 
installed in many different aircraft. In those cases, the FAA considers 
it impractical to issue AD's against each aircraft; in fact, many 
times, the exact models and numbers of aircraft on which the item is 
installed may not be known. Therefore, in those situations, the AD is 
issued so that it is applicable to the item; furthermore, those AD's 
usually indicate that the item is known to be installed on, but not 
limited to, various aircraft models. 

[[Page 51710]]

    In light of this, since the FAA is aware that the outflow/safety 
valves having the particular part numbers specified in this AD are 
installed only on the Learjet airplanes identified in the applicability 
of this AD, the FAA finds it appropriate in this case to issue the AD 
against the airplane. The FAA may consider addressing outflow/safety 
valves having other part numbers in subsequent rulemaking actions, 
applicable to the airplanes on which the valves are installed.
    The commenter also requests that certain Learjet service bulletins 
and the address for obtaining those service bulletins be cited in lieu 
of the Allied Signal Aerospace service bulletins cited in the proposal. 
The commenter indicates that Allied Signal Aerospace does not mail 
their service bulletins to operators of Learjet airplanes. The 
commenter also points out that the Learjet service bulletins transmit 
the same Allied Signal Aerospace service bulletins referenced in the 
AD. The commenter also indicates that the Allied Signal Aerospace 
service bulletins do not describe procedures for replacement of certain 
outflow/safety valves; therefore, the commenter has submitted a 
suggested rewrite of the service bulletin description that appeared in 
the preamble of the proposed rule. Learjet contends that its service 
bulletins more accurately define the serial numbers of the airplanes on 
which suspect valves may be installed, and includes those serial 
numbers in a suggested rewrite of the applicability of the AD. Finally, 
the commenter adds that the Learjet service bulletins were approved by 
the FAA as an alternative method of compliance with AD 94-26-01.
    The FAA concurs partially. In AD 94-26-01, the FAA cited the Allied 
Signal Aerospace service bulletins as the appropriate sources of 
service information; those citations were appropriately carried over 
into this AD. As explained in the preamble to the proposal, the FAA 
also reviewed and approved the Learjet service bulletins discussed by 
the commenter. While the Allied Signal Aerospace service bulletins do 
not contain specific procedures for replacement of the outflow/safety 
valves, those service bulletins do refer operators to the ``airplane 
manufacturer's instructions'' for the replacement procedures. 
Therefore, the Allied Signal Aerospace service bulletins are considered 
appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the 
replacement.
    In light of the commenter's remarks, however, the FAA has 
determined that the actions required by this AD may be accomplished in 
accordance with the procedures described in the Learjet service 
bulletins as well as the Allied Signal Aerospace service bulletins. 
Therefore, the final rule has been revised to reference both service 
information sources. In addition, the address for obtaining the Learjet 
service bulletins also has been added to the Addresses section of the 
preamble to this final rule. Further, the FAA has included in the 
applicability of this AD references to the Learjet service bulletins as 
sources for identification of airplane serial numbers on which suspect 
valves may be installed. (The applicability of the AD continues to 
reference the Allied Signal Aerospace service bulletins as the 
appropriate sources for identification of the affected outflow/safety 
valves.)
    Learjet asks that the product identification statement (after the 
heading ``Airworthiness Directives'' at the beginning of the preamble 
to the rule) be reworded from ``Learjet Model 24, 25, 31, 35, 36, and 
55 Series Airplanes, and Learjet Model 28 and 29 Airplanes'' to 
``Certain Learjet Model 24, 25, 31, 35, and 36 and All Model 28, 29, 
and 55 Series Airplanes.'' Learjet suggests that similar wording should 
appear throughout the rule. The FAA concurs partially. The product 
identification statement at the beginning of the preamble of an AD 
simply denotes the name of the type certificate holder or product 
manufacturer and the model designations of the affected airplanes. The 
FAA does not generally include the words ``certain'' or ``all'' in that 
statement; it is kept to a minimal length. However, the preamble of the 
final rule has been revised to include the commenter's suggested 
change. Further, the FAA infers from Learjet's request that its 
airplanes should be designated as ``series'' airplanes; therefore, the 
final rule has been revised accordingly.
    Learjet also requests that the statement of unsafe condition that 
relates to AD 94-26-01, which appeared in the Summary section of the 
preamble of the proposed rule, be revised. The proposed rule indicates 
that the actions specified by AD 94-26-01 are intended to ``prevent 
cracking and subsequent failure of the outflow/safety valves, which 
could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.'' The commenter 
suggests that the actions specified by that AD are intended to ``limit 
the airplane operating altitude due to a possible failure of the 
outflow/safety valves, which could result in rapid decompression of the 
airplane.'' The FAA concurs with the commenter's request, and has 
revised the wording throughout the final rule accordingly.
    Learjet also requests clarification of a paragraph that appeared in 
the preamble of the proposal that explains ``Note 1'' of the AD. That 
Note discusses the legal effect of AD's on airplanes that are 
identified in the applicability provision of the AD, but that have been 
altered or repaired in the area addressed by the AD. Learjet asks if 
this paragraph addresses aircraft that no longer meet the original type 
design.
    Although every effort was made to keep the language simple and 
clear in the paragraph referenced by the commenter, the FAA finds it 
apparent that some additional explanation is necessary to clarify for 
this commenter its intent. The paragraph referenced by the commenter 
merely explains the reason for the FAA's decision to include Note 1 in 
this AD. It does not change the substance of either the Note or of the 
regulatory effect of an AD, which the note is intended to explain. In 
response to the specific question posed by the commenter, in a literal 
sense, airplanes that have been altered ``no longer meet the original 
type design.'' However, as the Note states, that fact is irrelevant to 
the question of whether any airplane is subject to the AD; the 
applicability statement of the AD stands on its own.
    Learjet also requests that the economic impact information 
presented in the preamble to the proposal be revised to reflect the 
most current data available with regard to number of affected 
airplanes. Learjet indicates that there are approximately 1,333 
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet, and that 840 
of those airplanes are on the U.S. Register. Learjet also suggests that 
the AD reflect an estimate of 3 work hours that will be necessary for 
operators to inspect the outflow/safety valves installed on its 
airplanes. The commenter also suggests that proposed paragraph (b) be 
rewritten to include a requirement to inspect the outflow/safety valves 
to determine their part number.
    The FAA concurs partially. The FAA has revised the total number of 
airplanes affected by this AD, as suggested by the commenter. However, 
the FAA does not find it necessary to include an additional requirement 
for an inspection to determine the part number of the outflow/safety 
valves, since the applicability of the AD indicates that it applies 
only to those airplanes having outflow/safety valves that are 
identified in certain Allied Signal Aerospace service bulletins. The 
FAA acknowledges that it will be necessary for an operator to determine 
if this AD applies to its fleet, and has 

[[Page 51711]]
revised the economic impact information, below, to add 3 work hours to 
the cost estimate, as suggested by the commenter, to account for 
determining if the specific part-numbered valves are installed.
    Learjet also asks that the economic impact information be revised 
to specify that Allied Signal Aerospace is the appliance manufacturer. 
The FAA concurs, and has revised the information accordingly.
    Learjet requests that the final paragraph of the economic impact 
information also be revised to specify that operators should already 
have complied with the AFM revision required by AD 94-26-01. The FAA 
concurs, and has revised the economic impact information accordingly.
    Learjet also questions two paragraphs that appear in the preamble 
of the proposal. The first paragraph indicates that the AD does not 
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment; the second concerns the 
determination of the rule's economic impact on small entities 
(``regulatory flexibility''). The commenter suggests that a review of 
these two paragraphs may be necessary in light of the revised number of 
airplanes affected by the AD.
    The FAA does not concur with the commenter's suggestion. Concerning 
the paragraph pertaining to the Federalism Assessment, Executive Order 
12612 requires that every rule be assessed for its impact on state and 
local governments. In general, AD's will not have an effect on other 
government entities because the regulation of aviation is federally 
preempted by statute. State and local government are not delegated the 
authority to regulate aviation; therefore, there are no ``parallel'' 
local regulations that could be impacted by an AD. The paragraph 
concerning the Federalism Assessment is included in this rule merely to 
explain this required finding.
    Regarding regulatory flexibility findings, very few AD's will ever 
reach the level of having a ``significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities,'' since either 
most aircraft operators do not meet the agency's criteria for small 
entities, or because the cost of an individual AD usually does not 
exceed the agency limit for significant impact. A statement concerning 
the impact, or lack of it (as in the case of this AD), is required to 
be included in the certification statement of each AD.
    Learjet also asks that paragraph (a) of the proposal be revised so 
that the effective date of the AD is stated as ``Within 30 days after 
the effective date of this AD (if not previously accomplished per AD 
94-26-01, amendment 39-9097) ....'' The FAA concurs partially. The 
requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD was required previously by AD 
94-26-01 to be accomplished within 30 days after January 3, 1995, which 
is the effective date of that AD. Paragraph (a) of this AD merely 
restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of the existing AD. As 
allowed by the phrase, ``unless accomplished previously,'' which 
appears in the ``Compliance'' statement of the AD, if the requirement 
of paragraph (a) of that AD has already been accomplished, this final 
rule does not require that those actions be repeated. Therefore, the 
FAA finds it unnecessary to revise the compliance time specified in 
paragraph (a) of the final rule. However, to eliminate any confusion 
that may exist, the FAA has added a note to the final rule to clarify 
its intent with regard to restating paragraph (a) of AD 94-26-01.
    Learjet also indicates that the requirement of paragraph (a) could 
be accomplished by inserting a copy of Learjet Temporary Flight Manual 
(TFM) Change 94-14, dated January 9, 1995 (for Model 24 series 
airplanes), or TFM Change 94-15, dated January 9, 1995 (for all models, 
including Model 24 series airplanes), into the AFM. The FAA concurs and 
has included a note after paragraph (a) of the final rule to reflect 
this information.
    After careful review of the available data, including the comments 
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public 
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously 
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither 
significantly increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase 
the scope of the AD.
    There are approximately 1,333 Model 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, and 
55 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The 
FAA estimates that 840 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by 
this proposed AD.
    The AFM revision currently required by AD 94-26-01 takes 
approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost 
impact associated with the current AFM revision requirement of AD 94-
26-01 on U.S. operators is estimated to be $50,400, or $60 per 
airplane.
    However, based on information provided by the manufacturer, and 
based on the effective date of AD 94-26-01, the FAA assumes that the 
majority of U.S. operators will have already accomplished the AFM 
revision requirement. Therefore, any future economic impact of this AD 
can be assumed to be less than the ``total cost impact'' figure 
indicated above.
    The removal and replacement of parts that are required by this new 
AD will take approximately 15 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at 
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. (This estimate includes 3 
work hours that are required to determine the valve serial number.) 
However, Allied Signal (the appliance manufacturer) advises that it 
will reimburse operators for the costs of removal and replacement. 
Therefore, based on this information, the total cost impact associated 
with determining the valve serial number is estimated to be $151,200, 
or $180 per airplane. (U.S. operators will incur no cost impact for the 
removal and replacement requirements.) This total cost impact figure is 
based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished these new 
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish 
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final 
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; 
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a 
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial 
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action 
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained 
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of 
the 

[[Page 51712]]
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), 40101, 40113, 44701.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9097 (59 FR 
64844, December 16, 1994), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), amendment 39-9381, to read as follows:

95-20-03 Learjet: Amendment 39-9381. Docket 94-NM-211-AD. Supersedes 
AD 94-26-01, Amendment 39-9097.

    Applicability: Model 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, and 55 series 
airplanes having airplane serial numbers listed in the Learjet 
service bulletins listed below; and equipped with Allied Signal 
outflow/safety valves, number 130406-1 or 102850-5, as identified in 
Allied Signal Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin 130406-21-A4011, 
Revision 3, dated January 5, 1995, or 102850-21-A4021, Revision 2, 
dated October 6, 1994; certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Service bulletin                         
 Service bulletin reference     revision level     Service bulletin date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learjet Service Bulletin SB  Original............  January 3, 1995.     
 24/25-21-4.                                                            
Learjet Service Bulletin SB  Original............  January 3, 1995.     
 28/29-21-8.                                                            
Learjet Service Bulletin SB  Original............  January 3, 1995.     
 31-21-6.                                                               
Learjet Service Bulletin SB  Original............  January 3, 1995.     
 35/36-21-19.                                                           
Learjet Service Bulletin SB  Original............  January 3, 1995.     
 55/21-10.                                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 use the authority 
provided in paragraph (d) of this AD to request approval from the 
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current 
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions 
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such 
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed 
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no 
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair 
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.

    Note 2: Paragraph (a) of this AD merely restates the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 94-26-01, amendment 39-9097. As 
allowed by the phrase, ``unless accomplished previously,'' if those 
requirements of AD 94-26-01 have already been accomplished, this AD 
does not require that those actions be repeated.

    To prevent rapid decompression of the airplane due to cracking 
and subsequent failure of certain outflow/safety valves, accomplish 
the following:
    (a) Within 30 days after January 3, 1995 (the effective date of 
AD 94-26-01, amendment 39-9097), revise the Limitations Section of 
the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the 
following. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD 
in the AFM.
    ``Operation of the airplane at any altitude above 41,000 feet is 
prohibited.''

    Note 3: Inserting a copy of Learjet Temporary Flight Manual 
Change 94-14, dated January 9, 1995 (for Model 24 series airplanes), 
or 94-15, dated January 9, 1995 (for all models, including Model 24 
series airplanes), into the AFM is considered acceptable for 
compliance with the requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD.

    (b) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, 
replace the outflow/safety valves, part numbers 130406-1 and 102850-
5, as identified in Allied Signal Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin 
130406-21-A4011, Revision 3, dated January 5, 1995, or 102850-21-
A4021, Revision 2, dated October 6, 1994, as applicable; or as 
identified in Learjet Service Bulletin SB 24/25-21-4, SB 28/29-21-8, 
SB 31-21-6, SB 35/36-21-19, or SB 55-21-10, all dated January 3, 
1995, as applicable; with serviceable parts in accordance with the 
procedures described in the applicable service bulletin. 
Accomplishment of this replacement constitutes terminating action 
for the requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD; after the 
replacement has been accomplished, the previously required AFM 
limitation may be removed.
    (c) As of January 3, 1995 (the effective date of AD 94-26-01, 
amendment 39-9097), no person shall install an outflow/safety valve, 
part number 130406-1 or 102850-5, as identified in Allied Signal 
Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin 130406-21-A4011, Revision 3, dated 
January 5, 1995, or 102850-21-A4021, Revision 2, dated October 6, 
1994, as applicable; or as identified in Learjet Service Bulletin SB 
24/25-21-4, SB 28/29-21-8, SB 31-21-6, SB 35/36-21-19, or SB 55-21-
10, all dated January 3, 1995, as applicable; on any airplane unless 
that valve is considered to be serviceable in accordance with the 
specifications contained in the Accomplishment Instructions of the 
applicable service bulletin.
    (d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall 
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal 
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

    Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

    (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) The replacement shall be done in accordance with Allied 
Signal Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin 130406-21-A4011, Revision 3, 
dated January 5, 1995; Allied Signal Aerospace Alert Service 
Bulletin 102850-21-A4021, Revision 2, dated October 6, 1994; Learjet 
Service Bulletin SB 24/25-21-4, dated January 3, 1995; Learjet 
Service Bulletin SB 28/29-21-8, dated January 3, 1995; Learjet 
Service Bulletin SB 31-21-6, dated January 3, 1995; Learjet Service 
Bulletin SB 35/36-21-19, dated January 3, 1995; or Learjet Service 
Bulletin SB 55-21-10, dated January 3, 1995; as applicable. The 
incorporation by reference of Allied Signal Aerospace Alert Service 
Bulletin 102850-21-A4021, Revision 2, dated October 6, 1994, was 
approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of January 3, 
1995 (59 FR 64844). The incorporation by reference of the remainder 
of the documents listed 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 Allied Signal, Inc., Controls & 
Accessories, 11100 N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona 85737-9588; 
telephone (602) 469-1000; and Learjet, Inc., P.O. Box 7707, Wichita, 
Kansas 67277-7707. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 
at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (g) This amendment becomes effective on November 2, 1995.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 20, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-23811 Filed 10-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U