50264 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

secondary fuel barrier, and corrosioninhibiting compound to areas on the

front spar of the wing center section.

The actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 724 Boeing

Model 757–200 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 463 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $100 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $101,860, or

$220 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 substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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:

Boeing: Docket 97–NM–54–AD.

Applicability: Model 757–200 series

airplanes, line numbers 1 through 724

inclusive, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 leakage of fuel through the

fasteners, sealant, or structural cracks in the

center section structure, which could result

in fuel or fuel vapors entering into the cargo

or passenger compartment of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, apply sealant, secondary fuel

barrier, and corrosion-inhibiting compound

to areas on the front spar of the wing center

section, in accordance with Figure 3 of

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–57–0053, dated

February 6, 1997.

(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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

September 19, 1997.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25415 Filed 9–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–110–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier

Model 328–100 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

certain Dornier Model 328–100 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

a one-time inspection to determine if

the rigging bushings in the rudder

control system protrude above the

surface of the flange in which they are

installed, and replacement of any

discrepant bushing with a new bushing.

This proposal is prompted by the

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent jamming in the

rudder control system, and consequent

reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

October 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

110–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

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, P.O. Box 1103,

D–82230 Wessling, Germany. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Beane, Aerospace Engineer,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50265

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2796; fax (425) 227–1149.

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 97–NM–110–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–110–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

Germany, notified the FAA that an

unsafe condition may exist on certain

Dornier Model 328–100 series airplanes.

The LBA advises that it received a

report indicating that, during routine

inspection, a rigging bushing in the

rudder control system was found to

protrude above the surface of the flange

on which it was installed. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in jamming in the rudder control

system, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Dornier has issued Alert Service

Bulletin ASB–328–27–003, dated July

13, 1994, which describes procedures

for performing a one-time visual

inspection to determine if the rigging

bushings in the rudder control system

protrude above the surface of the flange

in which they are installed, and

replacement of any discrepant rigging

bushing with a new bushing.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the alert service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. The LBA

classified this alert service bulletin as

mandatory and issued German

airworthiness directive 96–176, dated

June 6, 1996, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Germany.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Germany and is 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,

the LBA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the LBA,

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

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the alert service bulletin described

previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 7 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 3 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the proposed

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$1,260, or $180 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 substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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:

Dornier: Docket 97–NM–110–AD.

Applicability: Model 328–100 airplanes,

serial numbers 3005 through 3014 inclusive,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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
50266 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 jamming in the rudder control

system, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time visual

inspection to determine if the rigging

bushings of the rudder control system

protrude above the surface of the flange in

which they are installed, in accordance with

Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB–328–27–

003, dated July 13, 1994. If any bushing

protrudes by any amount above the surface

of the flange, prior to further flight, replace

the bushing with a new bushing, in

accordance with the alert service bulletin.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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 German airworthiness directive 96–176,

dated June 6, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

September 19, 1997.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25417 Filed 9–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

RIN 0960–AE53

Administrative Review Process;

Identification and Referral of Cases for

Quality Review Under the Appeals

Council’s Authority To Review Cases

on Its Own Motion

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: We propose to amend our

regulations to include the rules under

which a decision or order of dismissal

that is issued after the filing of a request

for a hearing by an administrative law

judge (ALJ) will be referred to the

Appeals Council for possible review

under the Appeals Council’s existing

authority to review cases on its own

motion. The proposed rules concern

identification and referral procedures

that we currently follow to ensure the

accuracy of decisions at the ALJ-hearing

step (hearing level) of the administrative

review process, and new quality

assurance procedures that we are

proposing under the Plan for a New

Disability Claim Process approved by

the Commissioner of Social Security in

September 1994 (59 FR 47887). The

procedures set forth in the proposed

rules apply to dispositions at the

hearing level of the administrative

review process that are made by ALJs,

and also to dispositions at the hearing

level that are not made by ALJs but are

subject to review under the Appeals

Council’s own-motion authority. The

latter type of dispositions currently

consist of wholly favorable decisions

issued by attorney advisors and

adjudication officers.

DATES: To be sure that your comments

are considered, we must receive them

no later than November 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in writing to the

Commissioner of Social Security, P.O.

Box 1585, Baltimore, MD 21235; sent by

telefax to (410) 966–2830; sent by E-mail

to ‘‘regulations@ssa.gov’’; or, delivered

to the Division of Regulations and

Rulings, Social Security Administration,

3–B–1 Operations Building, 6401

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21235, between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M.

on regular business days. Comments

may be inspected during these same

hours by making arrangements with the

contact person shown below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry J. Short, Legal Assistant, Division

of Regulations and Rulings, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–6243 for information about these

rules. For information on eligibility or

claiming benefits, call our national tollfree number, 1–800–772–1213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under procedures set forth in

§§ 404.967 ff. and 416.1467 ff., and

pursuant to a direct delegation of

authority from the Commissioner of

Social Security (see 61 FR 35844, 35852,

July 8, 1996), the Appeals Council, a

component in our Office of Hearings

and Appeals (OHA), reviews hearing

decisions and orders of dismissal issued

by ALJs of the Social Security

Administration (SSA). The Appeals

Council may review a decision or

dismissal action of an ALJ at the request

of a party to the action or, under

authority provided in §§ 404.969 and

416.1469, on its own motion. Through

the exercise of its authority to review

cases, the Appeals Council is

responsible for ensuring that the final

decisions of the Commissioner of Social

Security under titles II and XVI of the

Social Security Act (the Act), as

amended, are proper and in accordance

with the law, regulations, and binding

agency policy.

The Appeals Council’s authority to

review cases on its own motion also

applies, at present, to two types of

hearing-level cases that do not result in

decisions by ALJs. Under §§ 404.942

and 416.1442, attorney advisors of OHA

are temporarily authorized to conduct

certain prehearing proceedings and to

issue, where warranted by the

documentary evidence, wholly

favorable decisions. Under the

provisions of §§ 404.942 (e)(2) and (f)(3)

and 416.1442 (e)(2) and (f)(3), such

decisions are subject to review under

the own-motion authority of the

Appeals Council established in

§§ 404.969 and 416.1469. In addition,

under §§ 404.943 and 416.1443,

adjudication officers are authorized, for

test purposes, to conduct certain

prehearing proceedings and to issue,

where warranted by the documentary

evidence, wholly favorable decisions.

Under the provisions of

§§ 404.943(c)(2)(ii) and

416.1443(c)(2)(ii), such decisions are

also subject to review on the Appeals

Council’s own motion.

Under our regulations on the Appeals

Council’s procedures, if the Appeals

Council decides to review a case in

response to a request for review or on

its own motion, it may issue a decision

or remand the case to an ALJ. The

Appeals Council may also dismiss a

request for hearing for any reason that

the ALJ could have dismissed the

request.

A decision by the Appeals Council

‘‘to review’’ a hearing-level decision

means that the Appeals Council

assumes jurisdiction to cause that

decision not to be the final decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security. A

decision that the Appeals Council

‘‘reviews’’ will be replaced by a new

final action in the case, either by a

decision or dismissal order of the