Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24887

(2) Install an FAA-approved primary wing

ice detection system in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO.

Note 4: McDonnell Douglas has received

FAA approval of an acceptable primary wing

ice detection system. This modification has

been assigned a McDonnell Douglas service

bulletin number but, at this time, no service

bulletin is available.

AFM Revision

(g) Prior to further flight after

accomplishment of the installation required

by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, revise

the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved

AFM to include the following. This may be

accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD

in the AFM. After accomplishment of the

installation required by paragraph (f) of this

AD and this AFM revision, the AFM

revisions required by paragraphs (a) and (b)

of this AD may be removed from the AFM,

and the tufts and triangular decals required

by paragraph (c) of this AD may be removed

from the airplane.

‘‘Ice on Wing Upper Surfaces

Caution

Ice shedding from the wing upper surface

during takeoff can cause severe damage to

one or both engines, leading to surge,

vibration, and complete thrust loss. The

formation of ice can occur on wing surfaces

during exposure of the airplane to normal

icing conditions. Clear ice can also occur on

the wing upper surfaces when cold-soaked

fuel is in the main wing fuel tanks, and the

airplane is exposed to conditions of high

humidity, rain, drizzle, or fog at ambient

temperatures well above freezing. Often, the

ice accumulation is clear and difficult to

detect visually. The ice forms most

frequently on the inboard, aft corner of the

main wing tanks. [END OF CAUTIONARY

NOTE]’’

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(h)(1) 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 ACO. 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.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

92–03–02, amendment 39–8156, are NOT

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(i) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10672 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–90–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Model DHC–7–100, and DHC–8–100,

–200, and –300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Bombardier Model DHC–7–100, and

DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

a one-time inspection of maintenance

records to determine the method used

during the most recent weight and

balance check of the airplane and, if

necessary, accomplishment of a weight

and balance check. This proposal is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent unusual

handling characteristics and consequent

reduced controllability during ground

operations due to incorrect methods of

weighing and balancing the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

90–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace

Group, P.O. Box 6087, Centre-ville,

Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,

New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James E. Delisio, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE–

171, FAA, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York

11581; telephone (516) 256–7521; fax

(516) 568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule.

The proposals contained in this notice

may be changed in light of the

comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–90–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2000–NM–90–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Canada, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

all Bombardier Model DHC–7–100, and

all Model DHC–8–100, –200, and –300

24888 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

series airplanes. TCCA advises that it

has received reports of airplanes having

unusual handling characteristics during

ground operations. Investigation into

the occurrences revealed discrepancies

between the actual center of gravity (CG)

of the airplane and the recorded CG in

the airplane’s maintenance records. All

of the airplanes involved had, since

delivery from the manufacturer,

accomplished a weight and balance

check using wing jacks. Further

investigation conducted by the

manufacturer (Bombardier) revealed

that, for high wing airplanes, the use of

wing jacks can result in CG errors as

large as 2 to 3 percent of the mean

aerodynamic chord (MAC). Such errors

could result in unusual handling

characteristics and consequent reduced

controllability during ground

operations.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued de

Havilland Weight and Balance Manuals,

as follows:

• PSM 1–7–8, Issue 1, dated

November 1978 (For Model DHC–7–100

series airplanes).

• PSM 1–7C–8, Issue 1, dated

November 1978 (For Model DHC–7–101

series airplanes).

• PSM 1–71–8, Issue 2, dated

February 1982 (For Model DHC–7–102

series airplanes).

• PSM 1–71C–8, Issue 1, dated

November 1979 (For Model DHC–7–103

series airplanes).

• PSM 1–8–8, Issue 3, dated March

1996 (For Model DHC–8–100 series

airplanes).

• PSM 1–82–8, Issue 2, dated March

1996 (For Model DHC–8–200 series

airplanes).

• PSM 1–83–8, Issue 3, dated March

1996 (For Model DHC–8–300 series

airplanes).

The de Havilland Weight and Balance

Manuals describe specific methods for

weighing and balancing the airplane to

ensure the proper CG for the airplane.

The methods involve using platform

scales or bottle neck jacks at the

undercarriage jacking points, and

specifically recommend NOT using

wing jacks. TCCA classified this service

information as mandatory and issued

Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

98–32R1, dated March 11, 1999, in

order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

Canada.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in Canada and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, TCCA has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of TCCA,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

a one-time inspection of the

maintenance records to determine the

method used during the most recent

weight and balance check of the

airplane and, if necessary,

accomplishment of a weight and

balance check. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service information

described previously.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Foreign Airworthiness Directive

The proposed AD would differ from

the parallel Canadian airworthiness

directive in that it would require the

inspection of the maintenance records

within 60 days after the effective date of

this AD. The parallel Canadian

airworthiness directive recommends the

inspection within 1 year after the

effective date of that AD. In developing

an appropriate compliance time for this

AD, the FAA considered not only

TCCA’s recommendation, but the degree

of urgency associated with addressing

the subject unsafe condition, and the

average utilization of the affected fleet.

In light of these factors, the FAA finds

a 60-day compliance time for

performing the inspection actions to be

warranted, in that it represents an

appropriate interval of time allowable

for affected airplanes to continue to

operate without compromising safety.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 207 series

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, and that

it would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

proposed inspection, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $12,420, or $60 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would 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 proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (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) if

promulgated, 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 draft

regulatory 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, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Bombardier Inc. (Formerly de Havilland,

Inc.): Docket 2000–NM–90–AD.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24889

Applicability: All Model DHC–7–100 series

airplanes and all Model DHC–8–100, –200,

and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any

category.

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 request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) 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 the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent unusual handling

characteristics and consequent reduced

controllability during ground operations due

to incorrect methods of weighing and

balancing the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time inspection of

maintenance records to determine the

method used during the most recent weight

and balance check of the airplane.

(1) If the maintenance records indicate that

platform scales or bottle jacks at the

undercarriage jacking points were used

during the most recent weight and balance

check, no further action is required by this

AD.

(2) If the maintenance records indicate that

wing jacks were used during the most recent

weight and balance check, or if the

maintenance records do not verify the use of

platform scales or bottle jacks at the

undercarriage jacking points, prior to further

flight, accomplish a weight and balance

check of the airplane in accordance with the

applicable de Havilland Weight and Balance

Manual procedures specified in paragraph

(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(iv),

(a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(vi), or (a)(2)(vii), of this AD.

(i) For Model DHC–7–100 series airplanes:

Accomplish the actions in accordance with

de Havilland Weight and Balance Manual

PSM 1–7–8, Issue 1, dated November 1978.

(ii) For Model DHC–7–101 series airplanes:

Accomplish the actions in accordance with

de Havilland Weight and Balance Manual

PSM 1–7C–8, Issue 1, dated November 1978.

(iii) For Model DHC–7–102 series

airplanes: Accomplish the actions in

accordance with de Havilland Weight and

Balance Manual PSM 1–71–8, Issue 2, dated

February 1982.

(iv) For Model DHC–7–103 series

airplanes: Accomplish the actions in

accordance with de Havilland Weight and

Balance Manual PSM 1–71C–8, Issue 1, dated

November 1979.

(v) For Model DHC–8–100 series airplanes:

Accomplish the actions in accordance with

de Havilland Weight and Balance Manual

PSM 1–8–8, Issue 3, dated March 1996.

(vi) For Model DHC–8–200 series

airplanes: Accomplish the actions in

accordance with de Havilland Weight and

Balance Manual PSM 1–82–8, Issue 2, dated

March 1996.

(vii) For Model DHC–8–300 series

airplanes: Accomplish the actions in

accordance with de Havilland Weight and

Balance Manual PSM 1–83–8, Issue 3, dated

March 1996.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, New York ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–98–

32R1, dated March 11, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10671 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–78–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and

–500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –300,

–400, and –500 series airplanes. That

AD currently requires inspection of the

fueling float switch wiring in the center

fuel tank to detect discrepancies,

accomplishment of corrective actions,

and installation of double Teflon

sleeving over the wiring of the float

switch. In lieu of the above mentioned

requirements, that AD provides for

deactivation of the float switch. This

proposed action would eliminate the

option for deactivation of the float

switch and require, for all affected

airplanes, repetitive inspections of the

float switch wiring to detect

discrepancies; replacement of the float

switch and wiring, if necessary; and

replacement of the double Teflon

sleeving. For certain airplanes, this

action also would add a new

requirement for inspection and

installation of partial double Teflon

sleeving in a certain area. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct chafing of

the direct current powered float switch

wiring insulation in the center fuel tank

and the resultant arcing from the wiring

to the in-tank conduit, which could

present an ignition source inside the

fuel tank and result in a consequent fire

or explosion.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

78–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorr

M. Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2684;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be