[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57850-57854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19888]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2005-21175; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD; 
Amendment 39-15220; AD 2007-21-02]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Models 58P 
and 58TC Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 
Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) Models 58P and 58TC airplanes that were 
used as lead airplanes by the United States Forest Service (USFS). This 
AD establishes new limits for the structural life of the airframe 
(wing, fuselage, empennage, and associated structure) through the 
incorporation of a supplement to the Limitations Section of the pilot's 
operating handbook and airplane flight manual (POH/AFM). This AD 
results from the FAA's analysis and determination that the operational 
history and usage of the affected airplanes requires a reduction in the 
structural life limit to 4,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) for the 
airframe (wing, fuselage, empennage, and associated structure). We are 
issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airframe (wing, 
fuselage, empennage, or associated structure) based on the operational 
history and usage of the affected airplanes. Such failure could lead to 
loss of control.

DATE: This AD becomes effective on November 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD, 
contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 
67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA-2005-21175; Directorate 
Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer, 
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, 
Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; fax: (316) 946-4107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On November 16, 2005, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that 
would apply to certain RAC Models 58P and 58TC airplanes that were used 
as lead airplanes by the USFS. This proposal was published in the 
Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 
22, 2005 (70 FR 70555). The NPRM proposed to establish new limits for 
the structural life of the airframe (wing, fuselage, empennage, and 
associated structure) through the incorporation of a new supplement 
into the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM; and require the disposal 
of the life-limited airframe following 14 CFR 43.10 when the structural 
life limit of the airframe is reached.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
and the FAA's response to each comment.

[[Page 57851]]

Comment Issue No. 1: Public Use Aircraft

    Four commenters, including Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C. 
(referred to after this as ``Winstead''), discuss the use of these 
airplanes in public aircraft operations. These airplanes were 
previously used in public aircraft operations by the USFS. We infer 
that the commenters request approval to use these airplanes in public 
aircraft operations beyond the life limits of 4,500 hours TIS.
    When these airplanes were operated solely as public aircraft, they 
were exempt from many FAA regulations. However, since some of these 
airplanes may now be utilized as civil aircraft, the FAA has the 
responsibility to oversee the continued operational safety of these 
airplanes. The FAA must take into account the operational history and 
past usage of the airplanes. We do not agree that these airplanes 
should be exempt from the 4,500-hour TIS life limit because the 
airplanes could still be used as civil aircraft. Any time the airplane 
is used as a civil aircraft, the 4,500-hour TIS life limit will apply.
    Airplanes used in public aircraft operations are exempt from many 
FAA regulations. However, these exemptions only apply when the airplane 
is operated in a public aircraft capacity. Advisory Circular (AC) 00-
1.1, Government Aircraft Operations, reads:

    The status of an aircraft as ``public aircraft'' or ``civil 
aircraft'' depends on its use in government service and the type of 
operation that the aircraft is conducting at the time. Rather than 
speaking of particular aircraft as public aircraft or civil 
aircraft, it is more precise to speak of particular operations as 
public or civil in nature. Example: An aircraft owned by a state 
government is used in the morning for a search and rescue mission. 
During the search and rescue operation, the aircraft is a public 
aircraft. Later that same day, however, the aircraft is used to fly 
the governor of the state from one meeting to another. At that time, 
the aircraft loses its public aircraft status and must be operated 
as a civil aircraft.

    AC 00-1.1, Government Aircraft Operations, is available for review 
in its entirety at http://www.airweb.faa.gov.
    Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 91) prohibits a pilot 
from operating a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. 
AC 00-1.1 also addresses this subject:

    [Federal Aviation Regulations] part 91 prohibits a pilot from 
operating a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. 
The pilot in command (PIC) is responsible for determining whether 
the aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The PIC is required to 
terminate the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or 
structural conditions occur. In addition, the PIC may not operate 
the aircraft without complying with the operating limitations 
specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, 
markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the 
certificating authority of the country of registry.

    So in the above example, although the aircraft may be primarily 
used in public operation, it is used as a civil aircraft also. 
Therefore, the pilot must assure the airplane operated as a civil 
aircraft is in an airworthy condition, which would include all ADs, 
limitations, life limits, and other mandated requirements.
    There may be cases where an airplane is used solely in public 
operations. Although aircraft used in public operations are generally 
exempt from compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations, the 
safety implications of the structural fatigue life (4,500 hours TIS) of 
the airframe are serious. Therefore, we strongly recommend operators of 
public-use-only aircraft comply with the structural fatigue life (4,500 
hours TIS) of the airframe. We are adding a note to the Compliance 
section reiterating our concern and this recommendation.
    We will not make any changes to the final rule AD based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 2: Withdraw the NPRM, Suspend AD Action, and Reject 
the Reduced Life Limits

    Four commenters, including the Charlotte County (Florida) Sheriff's 
Office, state that the FAA should withdraw the NPRM, suspend the AD 
action, and reject the reduced life limits established by RAC.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenters. Airplanes certificated under 
the safe life regulations have a structural fatigue life limit based on 
the results of fatigue testing, fatigue analysis, and flight strain 
surveys. The structural fatigue life limits are determined by the 
mission profile and mission mix, flight length, number of ground-air-
ground cycles, overall usage, and the severity of the fatigue spectrum. 
Utilizing the above criteria, the FAA has determined that the 
structural fatigue life of these 21 airplanes, which have been operated 
in a severe spectrum, must be reduced to 4,500 hours TIS. As stated 
earlier, we analyzed the past usage of the airplanes while under the 
responsibility of the USFS in making this determination.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 3: The FAA Has Not Supplied Evidence That Shows the 
Need for AD Action and the FAA Should Disclose All Data

    Five commenters, including Winstead, Charlotte County Sheriff's 
Department, Texas Firebirds, Down East Emergency Medicine Institute, 
and Merced County Mosquito Abatement District (all operators of 
affected airplanes), state that the FAA has not supplied evidence that 
shows the need for AD action and that the FAA should disclose all data. 
The commenters also state that, based on their analysis of the service 
difficulty reports (SDRs), there is not a need for the reduced fatigue 
structural life.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenters. Establishing a structural 
fatigue life is not based solely on incidents/accidents. It is based on 
the evaluation of the mission profile and mission mix, flight length, 
the number of ground-air-ground cycles, the overall usage, and 
specifically in this case the severity of the fatigue spectrum. As 
stated earlier, these 21 airplanes were operated in a severe fatigue 
spectrum while under the responsibility of the USFS, and, now that the 
airplanes are in civil use, the FAA must analyze this past usage in 
making a decision on the structural fatigue life. SDRs are only one 
area the FAA evaluates in determining whether regulatory action is 
necessary to address safety. We agree that the SDR database alone would 
not justify the reduced life limit. However, when we consider the SDRs 
and the criteria described previously, especially the severe fatigue 
spectrum operations, continued operation of any of the 21 airplanes 
over 4,500 hours TIS would be unsafe. The FAA used the analysis of 
proprietary data from the type certificate holder. We are not allowed 
to include proprietary data in the public docket. All applicable data 
considered to be in the public domain is in the public docket.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 4: FAA Policy on Reduction of Airframe Structural 
Fatigue Life Limits

    One commenter, Dr. Robert M. Bowie, requests the FAA's policy on 
reducing the airframe structural fatigue life limits.
    The FAA may decide to lower the life limits for airplanes subjected 
to severe usage. This occurs when the FAA learns of airplanes that are 
used significantly outside the fatigue spectrum used to establish the 
life limits. This more severe spectrum usage includes differences in 
the mission profile and

[[Page 57852]]

mission mix, flight length, the number of ground-air-ground cycles, and 
the overall usage.
    When the FAA determines that a structural life limit must be 
reduced to address an unsafe condition, an AD is the only way to 
legally enforce the life limit. Section 14, paragraph 152 on page 109 
of the Airworthiness Directives Manual FAA-IR-M-8040.1A (FAA-AIR-M-
8040.1) is clear on this:

    a. General. Airworthiness Directives that apply more restrictive 
life limits to products are issued when the current life limits 
contribute to an unsafe condition. Note that a change to a life 
limit appearing only in a manual or on type certificate data sheets, 
even if FAA-approved, does not require compliance by the pilot or 
operator (although the FAA encourages that known limits be taken 
into consideration). To be LEGALLY required, the change must be made 
through an AD.

    We are not making any changes to the final rule AD based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 5: Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC)

    Five commenters, including Winstead, state that the FAA should 
approve an AMOC for the AD action, specifically a repetitive inspection 
program. However, no commenter provides the data to substantiate an 
AMOC.
    This AD, like most ADs, includes provisions for approval of AMOCs. 
The AD and 14 CFR 39.19 include procedures for applying for an AMOC. 
Part of these procedures is providing substantiating data that shows to 
the FAA the method is acceptable for addressing the unsafe condition. 
In this case, an AMOC that requests approval of a repetitive inspection 
program would need to address the damage tolerance of the structure. 
Typically, fracture mechanics-based methods that account for residual 
strength and crack propagation would address the unsafe condition and 
be found acceptable. Inspection methods must demonstrate the ability to 
reliably detect cracks before they grow to a critical size.
    As in any AD where AMOC requests are acceptable, the FAA will 
evaluate any request for an AMOC that is submitted following the proper 
procedures. The proposal should contain the appropriate data that shows 
it addresses the unsafe condition. The FAA will evaluate the proposal 
based on the above criteria and determine whether it provides an 
acceptable level of safety. If it does, then we will approve the AMOC.
    We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 6: Government Buy-Back and Loss of Airplane Warranty

    Three commenters, including John Ford, discuss a government buy-
back of these airplanes and the applicability of the manufacturer's 
warranty. We conclude that the commenters request the government buy-
back these airplanes and/or the manufacturer apply warranty coverage 
for the loss of the airplanes.
    We understand that the entities that operate these aircraft have a 
concern with the government aircraft surplus process. However, the FAA 
has no authority to enter into any buy-back agreements.
    Concerning the loss of airplane warranty, typically, the 
manufacturer's service information lists the required parts costs that 
are covered under warranty. This would mean that no charges or cost 
would be incurred by an airplane operator. However, in this case, there 
is no warranty involved. All of these airplanes were produced before 
1985. The FAA has no control over warranty coverage for the affected 
parties; some parties may incur higher costs than the estimates here.
    We are not making any changes to the final rule AD based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 7: Economic Impact

    Four commenters, including the Sarasota County (Florida) Sheriff's 
Office, note that this AD action will have a severe economic impact on 
the operators of the affected airplanes.
    Because this AD will reduce the certificated life limit of the 21 
airplanes utilized in a severe fatigue spectrum while under the 
responsibility of the USFS, the FAA recognizes that the AD will have an 
economic impact on those who currently use the airplanes. However, the 
FAA has determined that the safety implications of allowing these 
airplanes to continue to fly outweigh the economic impact that the AD 
would have on the affected operators of these airplanes.
    We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 8: Executive Orders, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and 
Small Business Administration Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996

    Two commenters, including the Down East Emergency Medical 
Institute, contend that the FAA violated several executive orders, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Small Business Administration 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. They also suggest that an 
independent outside legal review be performed.
    The FAA completed a regulatory evaluation to ensure that the 
proposed AD action met applicable executive orders; the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act; and other policies, procedures, and orders. We have 
included a description of the findings for this regulatory evaluation 
in the section entitled Regulatory Flexibility Determination. The FAA 
does not obtain independent outside legal reviews of AD actions. If the 
commenters desire such a review, then they may have such a review done 
at their expense.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 9: Extend (Reopen) the Comment Period for the NPRM 
and Hold a Public Meeting

    Six commenters, including the Texas Firebirds, request an extension 
of the comment period beyond the approximately 60 days provided by the 
NPRM and one commenter, Winstead, requests a public meeting with the 
FAA to discuss this AD action. The requests for extension range from an 
unspecified number of days to an additional 120 days. The majority of 
these commenters noted that the comment period coincided with the 
holidays that occur in November, December, and January.
    The FAA believes the DOT/FAA standard public comment period of 60 
days provided adequate opportunity for public input. We will continue 
to evaluate the need for a public meeting. However, we do not believe 
the AD action should be further delayed by reopening the comment period 
or holding a public meeting.
    If, after the AD is issued, individuals present specific ideas that 
they feel need to be more fully addressed, the FAA will evaluate these 
ideas. Of specific interest would be alternative solutions to address 
the unsafe condition.
    We are not reopening the comment period, holding a public meeting 
at this time, or changing the final rule AD action as a result of these 
comments.

Comment Issue No. 10: Agreement With FAA on This Airworthiness Action

    Three commenters, one of which is National Flight Services, made 
comments that they generally agree with this AD action. They request no 
specific change to the AD.

Conclusion

    We have also determined that the requirement proposed in the NPRM 
to dispose of the life-limited parts is not necessary by AD action. 14 
CFR 43.10 requires that anyone who removes a life-limited part from an 
airplane ensure that the part is controlled using one of

[[Page 57853]]

the methods in paragraph (c) of the regulation. This includes a 
recordkeeping system, tag or record attached to part, non-permanent 
marking, permanent marking, segregation, mutilation, or other methods. 
This AD establishes the airframe structural life limit of the affected 
airplanes. Anyone removing the life-limited airframe (wing, fuselage, 
empennage, and associated structure) from one of the affected airplanes 
is obligated by 14 CFR 43.10 to control the part once it is removed. 
Therefore, it is not necessary to require this through AD action. We 
have included a Note in the AD.
    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that 
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed 
except for removing the life-limited parts disposal requirement from 
the AD and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that this 
removal of the disposal requirement and the minor corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 21 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
    We estimate the cost to incorporate the RAC Beechcraft POH/AFM 
Supplement into the POH/AFM to be $80 per airplane (1 work-hour x $80 
per hour labor cost), for a total of $1,680 for U.S. operators. 
However, the POH/AFM supplement is life-limiting the structural 
airframe. The U.S. Government distributed the airplanes at no cost to 
the states, retaining title for five years, which have not passed. 
Therefore, the cost impact would consist of any costs of transfer from 
the state and the cost of any modifications the operators have 
incurred. We have no way of determining the cost of transfer for each 
airplane and the cost of any modifications that operators have made to 
the airplanes.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation.
    To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for 
their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including 
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The FAA did make such a determination for this AD. The 
basis for this determination is now discussed.
    Small entities are identified using standards from the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) for Small Governmental Jurisdictions and 
Small Organizations. These standards define a Small Governmental 
Jurisdiction as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than fifty thousand. These standards also define a Small 
Organization as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently 
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    There were 21 Beech Barons available for distribution by the Forest 
Service. Of these 21 airplanes, 1 was destroyed in an accident. Of the 
remaining 20 airplanes, 4 were distributed to U.S. government agencies; 
8 were distributed to states or state agencies; 6 were distributed to 
local governments; 1 was distributed to a non-profit agency; and 1 is 
unaccounted for. Of these agencies, one local government and one non-
profit agency would qualify as small entities. Therefore, this final AD 
will not adversely affect a large number of small entities.
    It should be noted that the agencies receiving these airplanes do 
not receive title to the airplanes for a five-year period. None of 
these agencies have had any of these airplanes for a five-year period. 
Until the agencies receive title to these airplanes, the airplanes 
remain the property of the United States government.
    We received one comment discussing the effect of the proposed AD on 
small entities. However, as discussed above, this final AD will not 
adversely affect a large number of small entities. Therefore, the FAA 
Administrator certifies that this rule will not impose a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and 
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed 
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a 
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket 
No. FAA-2005-21175; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD'' in your 
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

[[Page 57854]]

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:

2007-21-02 Raytheon Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-15220; Docket No. 
FAA-2005-21175; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on November 15, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models 58P and 58TC airplanes, with the 
following serial numbers: TJ-177, TJ-178, TJ-180, TJ-211, TJ-213, 
TJ-247, TJ-284, TJ-285, TJ-289, TJ-290, TJ-314, TJ-322, TJ-367, TJ-
368, TJ-370, TJ-371, TJ-425, TJ-426, TJ-433, TJ-442, and TK-33, that 
are certificated in any category. These airplanes were used as lead 
airplanes by the United States Forest Service for firefighting 
missions.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD is the result of the FAA's analysis and 
determination that the operational history and usage of the affected 
airplanes requires a reduction in the structural life limit to 4,500 
hours time-in-service (TIS) for the airframe (wing, fuselage, 
empennage, and associated structure). The actions specified in this 
AD are intended to prevent structural failure of the airframe (wing, 
fuselage, empennage, or associated structure) based on the 
operational history and usage of the affected airplanes. Such 
failure could lead to loss of control.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Insert the Raytheon       Upon the              Any person holding
 Model 58P/58PA and Model      accumulation of       at least a private
 58TC/58TCA POH/AFM            4,500 hours TIS on    pilot certificate
 Supplement, part number (P/   the airframe (wing,   as authorized by
 N) 102-590000-67, issued      fuselage,             section 43.7 of the
 January 2005, into the        empennage, or         Federal Aviation
 Limitations Section of        associated            Regulations (14 CFR
 pilot's operating handbook    structure) or         43.7) may modify
 (POH)/airplane flight         before further        the POH/AFM as
 manual (AFM) (P/N 102-        flight after          specified in
 590000-41 or 106-590000-5).   November 15, 2007     paragraph (e)(1) of
 The POH/AFM Supplement        (the effective date   this AD. Make an
 limits the structural         of this AD),          entry into the
 fatigue life of the           whichever occurs      aircraft records
 airframe (wing, fuselage,     later, unless         showing compliance
 empennage, and associated     already done.         with this portion
 structure) to 4,500 hours                           of the AD following
 TIS.                                                section 43.9 of the
                                                     Federal Aviation
                                                     Regulations (14 CFR
                                                     43.9).
(2) Do not operate any        As of November 15,    Not Applicable.
 Models 58P and 58TC           2007 (the effective
 airplanes (with any serial    date of this AD).
 number noted in paragraph
 (c) of this AD) upon the
 accumulation of 4,500 hours
 TIS on the airframe (wing,
 fuselage, empennage, or
 associated structure) or
 before further flight,
 whichever occurs later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note 1: 14 CFR 43.10 requires anyone who removes a life-limited 
part from an airplane to ensure that the part is controlled using 
one of the methods in paragraph (c) of the regulation. This includes 
a recordkeeping system, tag or record attached to part, non-
permanent marking, permanent marking, segregation, mutilation, or 
other methods. This AD establishes the structural life limit of the 
affected airplanes. Anyone removing the life-limited airframe (wing, 
fuselage, empennage, and associated structure) from one of the 
affected airplanes is obligated by 14 CFR 43.10 to control the part 
once it is removed.


    Note 2: Although aircraft used in public operations are 
generally exempt from compliance with the Federal Aviation 
Regulations, the safety implications of the structural fatigue life 
(4,500 hours TIS) of the airframe are serious. Therefore, we 
strongly recommend operators of public-use-only aircraft comply with 
the structural fatigue life (4,500 hours TIS) of the airframe.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 
ATTN: Steve Potter, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, 
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; fax: (316) 946-
4107. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the 
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in 
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, 
your local FSDO.

Related Information

    (g) You may obtain the service information referenced in this AD 
from Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 
67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140. To view the 
AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA-2005-21175; Directorate 
Identifier 2005-CE-24-AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 3, 2007.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-19888 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P