[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65290-65298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26661]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-CE-44-AD; Amendment 39-12920; AD 2002-21-13]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models 
35, 35R, A35, and B35 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-
02, which currently requires operating limitations on Raytheon Aircraft 
Company (Raytheon) Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes. This 
AD is the result of Raytheon developing inspection and modification 
procedures that, when accomplished on the affected airplanes, will 
eliminate the need for the operating limitations. This AD retains the 
operating limitations for the affected airplanes until the recently 
developed inspection and modification procedures are accomplished. This 
AD also requires repetitive inspections of the fuselage structure. The 
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent structural failure 
of the V-tail, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on December 10, 2002.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of 
December 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information referenced in this AD 
from the Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-
0085; telephone: (800) 625-7043 or (316) 676-4556. You may examine this 
information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central 
Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 
2000-CE-44-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, 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: Mr. T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, 
FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; facsimile: (316) 
946-4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

Has FAA Taken Any Action on the Raytheon Airplane Ruddervator System to 
This Point?

    AD 98-13-02, Amendment 39-10590 (63 FR 31916, June 11, 1998), 
currently requires the following on Raytheon Beech Models 35, A35, B35, 
and 35R airplanes:

--Fabricating a placard that restricts the never exceed speed (Vne) to 
no more than 144 miles per hour (MPH) or 125 knots (KTS) indicated 
airspeed (IAS) and installing this placard on the instrument panel 
within the pilot's clear view;
--Marking a red line on the airspeed indicator glass at 144 MPH (125 
KTS);
--Marking a white slippage mark on the outside surface of the airspeed 
indicator between the glass and case; and
--Inserting a copy of this AD into the Limitations Section of the 
pilot's operating handbook/airplane flight manual (POH/AFM).

    In addition, AD 94-20-04, Amendment 39-9032 (59 FR 49785, September 
30, 1994), requires the following on certain Beech Models C35, D35, 
E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B 
airplanes, as well as the Beech Models 35, A35, B35, and 35R airplanes:

--Checking the ruddervator static balance and rebalancing the 
ruddervators when the balance is not in accordance with manufacturer's 
specifications or anytime the ruddervators are repaired or repainted;
--Repetitively inspecting the fuselage bulkheads for damage and 
replacing any damaged parts;
--Installing stabilizer reinforcements for some airplane models, as 
applicable;
--Fabricating and installing airspeed limitation placards;
--Incorporating certain airspeed limitations into the POH/AFM;
--Inspecting the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control 
system for damage and replacing or repairing any damaged parts; and
--Ensuring the accuracy of the airplane basic weight and balance 
information and immediately correcting any discrepancies.

    Accomplishment of these actions is required in accordance with the 
instructions to either Beech Kit No. [chyph]35-4016-3, [chyph]35-4016-
5, [chyph]35-4016-7, or [chyph]35-4016-9, as applicable and as 
specified in Beech Service Bulletin No. 2188, dated May, 1987, and the 
applicable maintenance and shop manuals.

What Has Happened Since AD 94-20-04 and AD 98-13-02 To Initiate This 
Action?

    AD 94-20-04 contains minor errors and FAA receives periodic calls 
from the public for clarification.
    In addition, Raytheon has issued Recommended Service Bulletin No. 
SB [chyph]27-3358, Issued: February, 2000, which includes procedures 
for inspecting the aft fuselage, ruddervator, and related systems for 
acceptable condition and rebalancing the ruddervators to new 
specifications (upper limit reduced from 19.8 to 18 inch-pounds (tail 
heavy)). Accomplishing these inspections will eliminate the need for 
the operating limitations of AD 98-13-02. This service bulletin also 
includes the procedures necessary for continuing the repetitive 
inspections of the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control 
system (the inspections that AD 94-20-04 currently requires).

Has FAA Taken Any Action to This Point?

    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 
Raytheon Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes. This proposal 
was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) on March 26, 2001

[[Page 65291]]

(66 FR 16418). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 98-13-02, Amendment 
39-10590. The NPRM also proposed to require you to inspect the aft 
fuselage, ruddervator, and related systems for acceptable condition on 
Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes; adjust ruddervator 
balance to the new limits; and repair or replace damaged parts, as 
necessary. This proposed inspection requirement along with the new 
proposed limits for the ruddervator balance (set forth in Raytheon SB 
[chyph]27-3358, section 3.A) would terminate the need for the operating 
limitations for those airplanes.

Was the Public Invited to Comment?

    The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making 
of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the 
proposal and FAA's response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Allow Equipment Options for Propeller Balancing 
and Give Credit if the Equipment Has Been Recently Balanced

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    Several commenters state that requiring the propeller to be 
balanced in accordance with the service information is too restrictive. 
Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-3358 specifies the propeller balance in 
accordance with the Chadwick-Helmuth Dynamic Propeller balancer/
analyzer procedure. These commenters believe that this is too 
restrictive because several different manufacturers' equipment is 
available. They request that FAA include other options. These 
commenters also request that we give credit to those owners/operators 
who already recently had the propeller balancing accomplished.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    The proposed AD does not specify balancing of the propellers. This 
is only specified in paragraph (12) of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-
3358, Issued: February, 2000. We do recommend balancing the propellers 
to 0.02 inch per second (ips) or better using suitable equipment (if 
you have not already done the balancing within the last 5 years).
    We are not changing the final rule based on these comments.

Comment Issue No. 2: Allow Equipment Options for Skin Thickness and 
Acknowledge Differences in Skin Thickness

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    Several commenters present the same concern with the equipment used 
to measure skin thickness as that concern with the propeller balancing. 
That concern is specifying only one piece of equipment. These same 
commenters also state that there are differences in skin thickness, 
e.g., 0.016 inch instead of 0.018 inch.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We concur that specifying only one piece of equipment for the skin 
thickness measurement is too restrictive.
    We are changing the final rule AD action to state that you must 
accomplish this measurement in accordance with a digital ultrasonic 
skin tester or equivalent skin tester or by direct methods that utilize 
calipers and micrometers.
    We also concur that there are differences in skin thickness. We are 
adding to the final rule AD action reference to the different skin 
thicknesses that are specific to each airplane serial number and the 
location (fuselage stations) of each affected skin part number.

Comment Issue No. 3: Only Require a Designated Engineer Review (DER) of 
Modifications When Major Structural Changes Have Been Made

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    Several commenters state that a DER review for major structural 
modifications can be very expensive. These commenters recommend that an 
airframe and powerplant (A&P) mechanic be allowed to accomplish this 
review.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    The proposed AD does not specify a DER review of major structural 
modifications. This is only specified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 
27-3358, Issued: February, 2000. If an A&P mechanic suspects that the 
modifications might extensively affect the structural integrity of the 
airplane, a DER review is highly recommended.
    We will add the following note to the final rule AD:

    ``Only the inspections, repairs, replacements, and airplane 
basic weight and balancing requirements are required by paragraphs 
(d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(7), (d)(7)(i), and (d)(7)(ii) of this AD and the 
Appendix to this AD. Other actions specified in Raytheon Service 
Bulletin SB 27-3358 such as a DER review for major structural 
modifications are not required by this AD. If you have major 
modifications incorporated in the aft fuselage or empennage, we 
recommend a Structures DER review to ensure that the structural 
integrity is maintained after the modifications.''

Comment Issue No. 4: This AD Will Not Address the Problem Unless the 
Counterweight Configuration is Updated

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter relates an experience of making physical changes to 
counter weights as part of repainting. These changes used modified 
Beech parts that resulted in getting good balance and minimum weight. 
In fact, the commenter states that the balance required the same weight 
as was used with the airplane's 1949 delivery, even though the 
ruddervators had new skins with factory epoxy primer. The commenter 
points out the proposed AD will not address the problem unless the 
counterweight configuration is updated.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We do not concur. We do not have any information that indicates a 
balance specified in the service information cannot be obtained on the 
affected airplanes. If the balance cannot be obtained, we will consider 
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) to this portion of the AD 
provided substantiating information is submitted with the request.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 5: The NPRM Is Confusing About When the Speed 
Restrictions Are Required and When They May Be Removed

What Is The Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that it is unclear when the speed restrictions 
must be incorporated and when they may be removed. The commenter 
requests clarification on this subject.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    The NPRM retains the speed restrictions from AD 98-13-02, which was 
effective on July 7, 1998. The Compliance column of the chart in 
paragraph (d)(1) of the AD states this.
    In addition, paragraph (d)(7)(iii) states ``Discontinue the placard 
and operating limitations required by paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) 
of this AD.'' This is in sequence with the actions required that lead 
up to this limitations removal.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 6: This AD Does Not Address the Root Cause of the 
Problem

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that FAA has not found any specific fault with 
the affected airplanes that could be corrected to prevent the tail 
vibration.

[[Page 65292]]

The proposed AD would only provide actions to detect and correct the 
damage after it happened and would allow this potential damage to 
occur. The commenter requests that FAA identify the root cause of the 
problem and then work to develop a modification that would prevent the 
problem from reoccurring.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    Raytheon has analyzed and tested for many years to find the root 
cause for the problem. Raytheon has not been able to identify an 
obvious single cause for the ruddervator problems on the affected 
airplanes. However, Raytheon's analyses indicate that the new limits of 
the ruddervator balance set by this AD will greatly enhance the 
ruddervator stability.
    Therefore, FAA has determined that it is imperative that those 
operating the affected airplanes follow all operating limitations and 
restrictions, ensure that all balance limits are correct, and follow 
all criteria and maintenance manual procedures.
    Because of the age of these airplanes (some of which are over 40 
years old), we must closely monitor the continued airworthiness safety 
even if all limits, operations, and maintenance procedures are 
followed.
    Additional maintenance or operating procedures may be necessary to 
ensure their continued operational safety.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 7: Increase the 2-year Compliance Time to 3 Years

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that there are not enough maintenance 
facilities to accomplish the inspections in paragraph (d)(7) of the 
proposed AD on all affected airplanes within 2 years. The commenter 
recommends that FAA change this compliance time to 3 years.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We concur and will change the final rule AD action accordingly.

Comment Issue No. 8: This AD Is Being Used for Maintenance

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that FAA is using this AD to enforce the use 
of correct maintenance procedures and to establish better or improved 
maintenance procedures on the affected airplanes. The commenter states 
that this is an incorrect use of an AD and punishes those who have 
adequately maintained their airplanes. We infer that the commenter 
either wants the NPRM withdrawn or wants an exemption from the AD.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    Although we concur that part of this action is mandating better or 
improved maintenance procedures, we do not agree that this is an 
incorrect use of an AD. We are not issuing this AD to enforce the 
current procedures in the maintenance manual. An incorrect use of an AD 
would be to mandate the exact same actions that were part of the 
operators maintenance program at the time of aircraft delivery.
    The actions of this AD are not to be used instead of the current 
maintenance practices. They are to work concurrently with the current 
maintenance practices. Based on the service history we have received on 
this subject over the years and our evaluation of the subject, we have 
determined that this AD is justified and the proposed actions should be 
complied with.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 9: Remove the Repetitive Requirement for the Skin 
Thickness Measurement

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    Several commenters request that FAA remove the repetitive 
requirement for measuring the skin thickness. The commenters state that 
the inspection is done to determine whether the thickness is reduced 
beyond acceptable limits due to corrosion or due to surface polishing 
or abrasion over time.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    The FAA concurs. The intent was to only require the skin thickness 
measurement once within the next 100 hours TIS.
    We will change the repetitive skin thickness measurement in the 
final rule AD to a one-time action.

Comment Issue No. 10: Do Not Require the Rebalancing of the Ruddervator 
if the Logbooks Show it is Already Within the Correct Balance Limits

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that the ruddervator rebalancing limits should 
not be required if the logbook shows that these limits are currently 
met. The commenter recommends that we give accomplishment credit for 
this portion of the AD when the logbook entry shows that the 
ruddervator limits are met.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We concur that accomplishment credit should be given if the logbook 
``positively'' shows that the ruddervators meet the limits specified in 
the service bulletin. To ``positively'' show this, the entry must 
indicate that the ruddervator is within the specified limits and list 
the details of the balancing. This includes balancing methods used and 
the amount of weights and washers used.
    We will change the final rule AD action accordingly.

Comment Issue No. 11: Allow the Option of Accomplishing Either the 
Inspections, Modifications, and Balancing Requirements or Operating 
Within the Current Speed Restrictions

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    Several commenters state the actions in the proposed AD should only 
be required for those airplane operators who choose to exceed the 
current speed restrictions. The commenters suggest that the AD should 
provide the choice of accomplishing the proposed inspections, 
modifications, and balancing requirements or maintaining the speed 
restrictions currently required by AD 98-13-02.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We do not concur that the inspections, modifications, and balancing 
requirements should be optional. Some of the affected airplanes are 
over 40 years old. A thorough inspection over that provided during 
annual and 100-hour inspections is necessary to ensure the continued 
airworthiness of these airplanes. The inspections in the proposed AD 
provide this type of inspection.
    Also, this AD will impose tighter margins on the ruddervator 
balance and this will improve the dynamic characteristics of the 
airplane and yield a more stable airplane.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 12: Do Not Require 100-Hour TIS Inspections of the 
Ruddervator Travel

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    Several commenters state that the ruddervator travel need not be 
inspected every 100 hours TIS. These commenters state that this is too 
repetitive. The commenters do not recommend a different compliance time 
so we infer that the commenters want a one-time inspection of the 
ruddervator travel.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We concur that the ruddervator travel should only be a one-time 
action.
    We are changing the AD final rule action accordingly.

[[Page 65293]]

Comment Issue No. 13: Make the Repetitive Inspection Intervals Annual 
Instead of Every 100 Hours TIS

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    One commenter states that the 100-hour TIS interval for the 
proposed inspection is too frequent. The commenter recommends FAA 
change these to annually.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We do not concur. These aging airplanes are prone to fatigue 
cracking in the frames and skins. Our analysis indicates that this is 
due to airplane operation and that 100-hour TIS interval inspections 
are necessary to address the continued operational safety of these 
airplanes.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 14: Allow Removal and Weighing of the Elevator 
Assembly Using a Simple Balance Beam Method

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

    The commenter states that the method outlined in the service 
bulletin for balancing the ruddervator is unnecessary and could be 
accomplished using a simple balance beam method. The commenter 
recommends FAA change the proposed AD to allow this method.

What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?

    We partially concur. We have determined that the AD should require 
the ruddervator be balanced using procedures in Raytheon Service 
Bulletin SB 27-3358. We would consider other methods on a case-by-case 
basis if substantiating information is submitted with a request for an 
alternative method of compliance.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

FAA's Determination

What Is FAA's Final Determination on This Issue?

    After careful review of all available information related to the 
subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the 
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for 
the changes and clarifications discussed above and minor editorial 
corrections. We have determined that these changes, clarifications, 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

How Many Airplanes Does This AD Impact?

    We estimate that this AD affects 2,211 airplanes in the U.S. 
registry.

What Is the Cost Impact of This AD on Owners/Operators of the Affected 
Airplanes?

    We estimate the following costs to accomplish the initial 
inspections:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total cost  per
              Labor cost                      Parts cost             airplane      Total cost on  U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 workhours at $60 per hour = $3,300  $500 per airplane.......           $3,800   $8,401,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above figures are based only on the initial inspections and do 
not take into account the cost of repetitive inspections or 
adjustments, repairs, or replacements that will be necessary based on 
the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the 
number of repetitive inspections each owner/operator of the affected 
airplanes will incur or what adjustments, repairs, or replacements will 
be necessary based on the results of the inspections.

Regulatory Impact

Does This AD Impact Various Entities?

    The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.

Does This AD Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?

    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 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, 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

    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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 
98-13-02, Amendment 39-10590 (63 FR 31916, June 11, 1998), and by 
adding a new AD to read as follows:

2002-21-13 Raytheon Aircraft Company (Beech Aircraft Corporation 
formerly held Type Certificate (TC) No. A-777): Amendment 39-12920; 
Docket No. 2000-CE-44-AD; Supersedes AD 98-13-02, Amendment 39-
10590.

    (a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? This AD affects 
Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes, all serial numbers, 
that are certificated in any category.
    (b) Who must comply with this AD? Anyone who wishes to operate 
any of the airplanes referenced in paragraph (a) of this AD must 
comply with this AD.
    (c) What problem does this AD address? The actions specified by 
this AD are intended to prevent structural failure of the V-tail, 
which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

    Note 1: Only the inspections, repairs, replacements, and 
airplane basic weight and balancing requirements as specified in 
this AD are required by paragraphs (d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(7), 
(d)(7)(i), (d)(7)(ii) of this AD and the Appendix to this AD. Other 
actions specified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-3358 such as a 
DER review for major structural modifications are not required by 
this AD. If you have major modifications incorporated

[[Page 65294]]

in the aft fuselage or empennage, we recommend a Structures DER 
review to ensure structural integrity is maintained after the 
modifications.

    (d) What actions must I accomplish to address this problem? To 
address this problem, you must accomplish the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fabricate a placard that          Within the next 10 hours time-in-     Not Applicable.
 restricts the never exceed speed      service (TIS) after July 7, 1998
 (Vne) to no more than 144 miles per   (the effective date of AD 98-13-
 hour (MPH) or 125 knots (KTS)         02), unless already accomplished.
 indicated airspeed (IAS), and
 install this placard on the
 instrument panel within the pilot's
 clear view. The placard should
 utilize letters of at least 0.10-
 inch in height and contain the
 following words: ``Never exceed
 speed, Vne, 144 MPH (125 KTS)
 IAS''.
-------------------------------------
(2) Mark a red line on the airspeed   Within the next 10 hours time-in-     Not Applicable.
 indicator glass at 144 MPH (125       service (TIS) after July 7, 1998
 KTS) and mark a white slippage mark   (the effective date of AD 98-13-
 on the outside surface of the         02), unless already accomplished.
 airspeed indicator between the
 glass and case.
-------------------------------------
(3) Insert a copy of this AD into     Within the next 10 hours time-in-     Not Applicable.
 the Limitations Section of the        service (TIS) after July 7, 1998
 airplane flight manual (AFM).         (the effective date of AD 98-13-
                                       02), unless already accomplished.
-------------------------------------
(4) The owner/operator holding at     Within the next 10 hours time-in-     Make an entry into the aircraft
 least a private pilot certificate     service (TIS) after July 7, 1998      records showing compliance with
 as authorized by section 43.7 of      (the effective date of AD 98-13-      this AD in accordance with 43.9 of
 the Federal Aviation Regulations      02), unless already accomplished.     the Federal Aviation Regulations
 (14 CFR 43.7) may fabricate and                                             (14 CFR 43.9).
 install the placard as required by
 paragraph (d)(1) of this AD and
 insert this AD into the Limitations
 Section of the AFM as required by
 paragraph (d)(3) of this AD.
-------------------------------------
(5) Visually inspect the empennage,   Inspect within the next 100 hours     Accomplish the inspection and
 aft fuselage, and ruddervator         TIS after the last inspection         repairs or replacements in
 control system for damage:            required by AD 94-20-04 or within     accordance with the procedures in
(i) Part of this is an inspection of   the next 25 hours TIS after           paragraphs (5)(a) through (5)(f) of
 the aft fuselage skin for wrinkles    December 10, 2002 (the effective      the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS
 or cracks. Specific skin              date of this AD), whichever occurs    section of Raytheon Service
 thicknesses are presented in          later, and thereafter at intervals    Bulletin No. SB 27-3358, Issued:
 Figures 1 and 2 of this AD. The       not to exceed 100 hours TIS, except   February, 2000, and use a digital
 skin thickness measurement is not     for the skin thickness measurement    ultrasonic skin tester or
 repetitive.                           and the inspection and setting of     equivalent skin tester or direct
(ii) The inspection and setting of     the travels on the elevator and       methods that utilize calipers and
 the travels on the elevator and       elevator trim tabs, which are one-    micrometers. Specific skin
 elevator trim tabs are not            time actions. Accomplish any          thicknesses are contained in
 repetitive.                           repairs, replacements, and            Figures 1 and 2 of this AD.
(iii) Repair or replace any damaged    adjustments prior to further flight
 parts and set the elevator            after the applicable inspection.
 controls, rudder and tab system
 controls, cable tensions, and
 rigging.
-------------------------------------
(6) Verify the accuracy of the        Accomplish the airplane basic weight  Use the procedures contained in the
 airplane basic weight and balance     and balance accuracy verification     Appendix to this AD.
 information and correct any           within the next 100 hours TIS after
 discrepancies.                        December 10, 2002 (the effective
                                       date of this AD), unless already
                                       accomplished as previously required
                                       by AD 94-20-04. Correct any
                                       discrepancies prior to further
                                       flight after the verification.
-------------------------------------
(7) Inspect the aft fuselage,         Accomplish the inspections within     Accomplish the inspection and
 ruddervator, and related systems      the next 3 years after December 10,   repairs or replacements in
 for acceptable condition:             2002 (the effective date of this      accordance with the procedures in
(i) Repair or replace any parts        AD), unless already accomplished.     the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS
 found unacceptable as specified in    Accomplish any repair or              section of Raytheon Service
 the service bulletin.                 replacement prior to further flight   Bulletin No. SB 27-3358, Issued:
(ii) Rebalance the ruddervators to     after the inspection. Accomplish      February, 2000. Accomplish the
 the new specifications that reduce    any ruddervator rebalancing prior     rebalancing in accordance with
 the upper limit from 19.8 to 18       to further flight after the           Section 3A(8) of the service
 inch-pounds (tail heavy). This is     inspection, unless previously         bulletin and use the procedure in
 not necessary initially if you can    accomplished within the last 100      Section 3 of Beech Shop Manual 35-
 positively verify in the logbook      hours TIS, and thereafter when the    590096B19 (or subsequent revision).
 that the ruddervators meet the        ruddervators are repaired or
 limits specified in the service       repainted (even if stripes are
 bulletin:                             added or paint is touched up).
(A) To positively show this, the
 entry must indicate that the
 ruddervator is within the specified
 limits and list the details of the
 balancing.
(B) This must include the balancing
 methods used and the amount of
 weights and washers used.

[[Page 65295]]

 
(iii) Discontinue the placard and
 operating limitations required by
 paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of
 this AD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Where can I find Figures 1 and 2 of this AD? Figures 1 and 2 
of this AD, as referenced in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this AD, follow:

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 65296]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC02.000


[[Page 65297]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC02.001

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

[[Page 65298]]

    (f) Can I comply with this AD in any other way? (1) You may use 
an alternative method of compliance or adjust the compliance time 
if:
    (i) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent 
level of safety; and
    (ii) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA 
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send 
it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.
    (2) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance 
with AD 98-13-02, which is superseded by this AD, are approved as 
alternative methods of compliance for the corresponding portion of 
this AD.

    Note 2: This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph 
(a) of this AD, 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 you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific 
actions you propose to address it.

    (g) Where can I get information about any already-approved 
alternative methods of compliance? Contact Mr. T.N. Baktha, 
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 
Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-
4155; facsimile: (316) 946-4407.
    (h) What if I need to fly the airplane to another location to 
comply with this AD? The FAA can issue a special flight permit under 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate your airplane to a location where 
you can accomplish the requirements of this AD.
    (i) Are any service bulletins incorporated into this AD by 
reference? Actions required by this AD must be done in accordance 
with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-3358, Issued: February, 2000. 
The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by 
reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get 
copies from Raytheon Aircraft Company, PO Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 
67201-0085. You can look at copies at the FAA, Central Region, 
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, 
Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (j) Does this AD action affect any existing AD actions? This 
amendment supersedes AD 98-13-02, Amendment 39-10590.
    (k) When does this amendment become effective? This amendment 
becomes effective on December 10, 2002.

Appendix to AD 2002-21-13

Weight and Balance Accuracy Method No. 1

    1. Review existing weight and balance documentation to assure 
completeness and accuracy of the documentation from the most recent 
FAA-approved weighing or from factory delivery to date of compliance 
with this AD.
    2. Compare the actual configuration of the airplane to the 
configuration described in the weight and balance documentation.
    3. If equipment additions or deletions are not reflected in the 
documentation or if modifications affecting the location of the 
center of gravity (e.g., paint or structural repairs) are not 
documented, determine the accuracy of the airplane weight and 
balance data in accordance with Method No. 2.

Weight and Balance Information Accuracy Method No. 2

    1. Determine the basic empty weight and center of gravity (CG) 
of the empty airplane using the Weighing Instructions in the Weight 
and Balance section of the airplane flight manual/pilot's operating 
handbook (AFM/POH).
    2. Record the results in the airplane records, and use these new 
values as the basis for computing the weight and CG information as 
specified in the Weight and Balances section of the AFM/POH.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 15, 2002.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-26661 Filed 10-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P