49458 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

in the service bulletins described

previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 27 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts would be

provided by the manufacturer at no cost

to operators. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $1,620, 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 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 95–NM–182–AD.

Applicability: All Dornier Model 328–100

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

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 (c) 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 disconnect of the Anti-Skid

Control Unit (ASCU) of the aircraft braking

system and reversion to manual braking

during operation on runways contaminated

by standing water, slush, or wet snow, which

could result in reduced braking efficiency,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within six months after the effective

date of this AD, remove the ASCU of the

aircraft braking system having part number

(P/N) AE20464 and install ASCU having P/

N AE20768, in accordance with Dornier

Service Bulletin SB–328–32–097, dated May

23, 1995, or Revision 1, dated June 1, 1995.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane an ASCU

having P/N AE20464.

(c) 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.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 95–131/4,

dated October 19, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

September 16, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25056 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–187–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model BAC 1–11 200 and

400 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), that is applicable to all

British Aerospace Model BAC 1–11 200

and 400 series airplanes, that currently

requires a one-time inspection to

determine the tension of the control

cables of the thrust reversers, and to

detect breakage, damage, wear, or signs

of corrosion; and corrective actions, if

necessary. This action would require

that the inspections be repeated at

certain intervals. 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 failure of the

control cables, which may lead to the

inability of the thrust reverser to deploy

and/or an uncommanded deployment of

the thrust reverser while the airplane is

in flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

October 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM–

187-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

British Aerospace (Operations) Ltd.,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49459

trading as British Aerospace Airbus

Ltd., P.O. Box 77, Bristol BS99 7AR,

England. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2797; 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 96-NM–187-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.

96-NM–187-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On August 4, 1994, the FAA issued

AD 94–17–02, amendment 39–8997 (59

FR 41235, August 11, 1994) applicable

to all British Aerospace Model BAC 1–

11 200 and 400 series airplanes, to

require a one-time inspection to

determine the tension of the control

cables of the thrust reverser, and

correction of the tension, if necessary; a

one-time inspection of the cables to

detect breakage, damage, wear, or signs

of corrosion, and replacement of

discrepant cables with serviceable

cables; and lubrication of the cables.

That action was prompted by a report of

a frayed and corroded control cable. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent failure of the control cables,

which may lead to the inability of the

thrust reverser to deploy, and

subsequently, adversely affect stopping

distances and controllability of the

airplane on the runway during landing.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which

is the airworthiness authority of the

United Kingdom, advises that two inservice cable failures have resulted in

uncommanded deployment of the thrust

reverser at engine power idle on the

ground on a Model BAC 1–11 500 series

airplane. Corrosion, damage or wear of

the cables, if not corrected, could lead

to cable failure and result in inability of

the thrust reverser to deploy and/or an

uncommanded deployment of the thrust

reverser while the airplane is in flight.

The FAA has determined that

additional inspections are necessary to

ensure the integrity of the thrust

reverser control cables in the stub wing.

Since the thrust reverser system on

Model BAC 1–11 500 series airplanes is

similar in design to that of Model BAC

1–11 200 and 400 series airplanes, these

airplanes are also subject to the same

unsafe condition.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

British Aerospace has issued Alert

Service Bulletin 76-A-PM6031, dated

January 18, 1995, which describes

procedures for repetitive inspections of

the control cables of the thrust reverser

to determine the tension of the control

cables, and correction of the tension, if

necessary; inspections of the control

cables to detect breakage, damage, wear,

or signs of corrosion, and replacement

of discrepant control cables with

serviceable cables; and lubrication of

the cables. The CAA classified this alert

service bulletin as mandatory in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in the United Kingdom.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in the United Kingdom 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 CAA has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the CAA,

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 42 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The actions currently required by AD

94–17–02 take approximately 3 work

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of AD 94–17–02 on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $7,560, or $180 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new actions that are proposed in

this AD would take approximately 3

work hours per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the new AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $7,560, or $180 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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
49460 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

removing amendment 39–8997 (59 FR

41235, August 11, 1994), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

British Aerospace: Docket : 96–NM–187–AD.

Supersedes AD 94–17–02, Amendment

39–8997.

Applicability: All Model BAC 1–11 200

and 400 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 (c) 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 failure of the thrust reverser

control cables, which may lead to the

inability of the thrust reverser to deploy and/

or an uncommanded thrust reverser

deployment while the airplane is in flight,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 100 hours time-in-service or 30

days after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first, perform an inspection

to determine the tension of the control cables

of the thrust reverser, in accordance with

British Aerospace, Alert Service Bulletin 76–

A–PM6031, dated January 18, 1995. If the

tension of any control cable is outside the

limits specified in the alert service bulletin,

prior to further flight, correct the tension of

that cable in accordance with the alert

service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the

inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,400

hours time-in-service or 12 months,

whichever occurs first.

(b) Within 100 hours time-in-service or 30

days after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first, perform an inspection

to detect breakage, damage, wear, or signs of

corrosion (swelling) of the control cable of

the thrust reverser, in accordance with

British Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin 76–

A–PM6031, dated January 18, 1995.

(1) If no discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, lubricate the cables in

accordance with the alert service bulletin.

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals

not to exceed 2,400 hours time-in-service or

12 months, whichever occurs first.

(2) If any control cable is damaged, is worn

beyond the limits specified in the alert

service bulletin, is corroded, or has a broken

wire, prior to further flight, replace the

discrepant cable with a serviceable cable, and

lubricate the cables in accordance with the

alert service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the

inspection at intervals not to exceed 2400

hours time-in-service or 12 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first.

(c) 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.

(d) 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 15, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25041 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206

RIN 1010–AC09

Establishing Oil Value for Royalty Due

on Federal Leases

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of reopening the public

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) is reopening the public

comment period under a proposed rule

published in the Federal Register on

January 24, 1997 (62 FR 3742),

amending the regulations governing the

valuation for royalty purposes of crude

oil produced from Federal leases. In the

July 3, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR

36030), we published a supplementary

notice of proposed rulemaking. Based

on the diversity of comments received

under the proposed rule and the

supplementary proposed rule, we are in

this notice: publishing a summary of

those comments, outlining alternatives

for proceeding with further rulemaking,

and requesting public comment on

those alternatives. MMS intends to hold

workshops with State and industry

representatives to discuss these and

other alternatives. We will announce the

dates and locations of those workshops

at a later date. MMS intends to issue a

further notice of proposed rulemaking

following the comment period on this

notice.

DATES: We must receive comments on or

before October 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: You must send comments

to: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Publications Staff, Royalty Management

Program, Minerals Management Service,

P.O. Box 25165, MS 3101, Denver,

Colorado 80225–0165; telephone (303)

231–3432; fax (303) 231–3194; e-Mail

DavidlGuzy@mms.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Publications Staff, Royalty Management

Program, Minerals Management Service,

telephone (303) 231–3432, fax (303)

231–3194, e-Mail

DavidlGuzy@mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

principal author of this notice is

Deborah Gibbs Tschudy of the Royalty

Management Program.

I. Background

MMS published a notice of proposed

rulemaking on January 24, 1997 (62 FR

3741), to amend its current Federal