Background \n\n\n\tThe FAA has received a report of an incident where a Model 560XL airplane experienced an uncommanded engine acceleration on the ground following successful engine starts. The left engine throttle was unresponsive to power commands, including engine shut-off. An inspection identified that the left engine's sensor link and sensor drive arm (in the TQA) had separated. A sub-supplier of the TQA components failed to properly squeeze the rivet in a throttle quadrant link assembly. The rivet serves as the pivot between the TQA sensor link and sensor drive arm. The FAA determined that the failure of the TQA caused an asymmetrical uncommanded high-thrust that cannot be corrected by the flight crew in certain phases of flight. \n\tThis condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of thrust control, which could cause loss of control of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. \n\nFAA's Determination \n\n\n\tThe FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. \n\nRelated Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 \n\n\n\tThe FAA reviewed Textron Aviation Inc. Mandatory Service Letter SL560XL-76-04, Revision 1, dated November 24, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the rivet of the left and right TQA sensor link and sensor drive arm pivot for correct installation and, if necessary, replacing the rivet, reworking the diameter of the rivet, and inspecting the rivet butt for cracking. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES. \n\nAD Requirements \n\n\n\tThis AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under ''Differences Between this AD and the Service Information.'' \n\nDifferences Between This AD and the Service Information \n\n\n\tThe service information specifies compliance at the next ''time limited dispatch check,'' not to exceed 170 airplane hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first. However, this AD specifies a compliance time of 50 hours time-in-service. \n\nInterim Action \n\n\n\tThe FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then. \n\nJustification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective Date \n\n\n\tSection 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ''good cause,'' finds that those procedures are ''impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause. \n\tAn unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the potential for additional events to occur, based on average operational time, is an unacceptable risk. As a result, the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 50 hours time-in- service, a shorter time than necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). \n\tIn addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendmenteffective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and comment. \n\nComments Invited \n\n\n\tThe FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number FAA-2020-1108 and Project Identifier AD-2020-01397-T at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments. \n\tExcept for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule. \n\nConfidential Business Information \n\n\n\tCBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ''PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jeffrey Englert, Aviation Safety Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: (316) 946-4167; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: jeffrey.englert@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. \n\nRegulatory Flexibility Act \n\n\n\tThe requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tThe FAA estimates that this AD affects 176 airplanes of U.S. registry. \n\n((Page 81794)) \n\nThe FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per Cost on U.S. \n\tAction Labor cost Parts cost product operators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspection of the rivet............... 1 work-hour x $85 per $0 $85 $14,960 \n\thour = $85. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tThe FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary inspection, correction, or replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions: \n\n\n\tOn-Condition Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per \n\tActions Labor cost Parts cost product ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspection of the rivet butt, modification, Up to 3.5 work-hour x $85 per N/A Up to $297.50. \n\tand replacement. hour = $297.50. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tThe FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\n\tTitle 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. \n\tThe FAA is 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 withpromoting 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 rulemaking action. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tThis 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, and \n\t(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporationby reference, Safety.