Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66567

Aircraft type FD/AP system KSA 470 Part

No. Location

Raytheon 400 Series ............................................ KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–11 Yaw axis.

065–0076–15 Roll axis.

Raytheon 200 Series ............................................ KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–11 Yaw axis.

Raytheon 300 Series ............................................ KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–15 Yaw axis.

Raytheon 350 Series ............................................ KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–15 Yaw axis.

Dassault Falcon 20 ............................................... KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–15 Pitch axis.

065–0076–15 Roll axis.

Fairchild C26A/C26B ............................................ KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–11 Yaw axis.

Fairchild SA227–AC/AT/BC/CC/DC ...................... KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–15 Roll axis.

Learjet 31A ............................................................ KFC 3100 ............................................................ 065–0076–12 Pitch axis.

065–0076–14 Yaw axis.

065–0076–15 Roll axis.

Lockheed S–2 Tracker .......................................... KFC 325 .............................................................. 065–0076–10 Special.

Piper 400LS and PA–42–1000 ............................. KFC 400 .............................................................. 065–0076–15 Yaw axis.

Note 2: This AD applies to each aircraft

identified in the preceding applicability

provision that incorporates one of the

affected actuators, regardless of whether it

has been modified, altered, or repaired in the

area subject to the requirements of this AD.

For aircraft 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 (d) 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 within the next 100

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent the servo actuator roll pins

from becoming loose; falling out; becoming

lodged in the output shaft clutch mechanism;

and preventing this mechanism from

disengaging, which could result in increased

effort by the pilot to control the aircraft and

possible loss of control of the affected flight

control axis, accomplish the following:

(a) Replace the autopilot servo actuator

with an actuator that incorporates Mod 3 in

accordance with the applicable maintenance

manual. This modification changes the size

of the servo actuator roll pin holes to assure

that the pins do not become loose and fall

out.

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

person may install, on aircraft, one of the

affected servo actuators that does not

incorporate Mod 3.

(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.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas 67209. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Wichita ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the documents referred

to herein upon request to AlliedSignal

Aerospace, Technical Publications,

Department 65–70, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix,

Arizona 85072–2170; or may examine these

documents at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 10, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33146 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–109–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alexander

Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau Model

ASK–21 Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain

Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau

(Alexander Schleicher) Model ASK–21

sailplanes that do not have a certain

automatic elevator connection installed.

The proposed AD would require drilling

a drainage hole in the elevator pushrod,

inspecting the elevator pushrod for

corrosion damage, and replacing any

elevator pushrod if a certain amount of

corrosion damage is found. The

proposed AD is the result of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI) issued by the airworthiness

authority for Germany. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent failure of the

elevator pushrod caused by corrosion

damage, which could result in loss of

control of the sailplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–CE–

109–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau,

6416 Poppenhausen, Wasserkuppe,

Federal Republic of Germany. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

J. Mike Kiesov, Project Officer,

Sailplanes/Gliders, Small Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification

Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone

(816) 426–6932; facsimile (816) 426–

2169.

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

should 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
66568 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 that

summarizes 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 No. 97–CE–109–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, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 97–CE–109–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

Germany, recently notified the FAA that

an unsafe condition may exist on certain

Alexander Schleicher Model ASK–21

sailplanes that do not have an automatic

elevator connection installed in

accordance with Alexander Schleicher

Technical Note No. 11, dated December

20, 1983. The LBA reports several cases

where the elevator pushrods are heavily

corroded.

This condition, if not corrected, could

cause corrosion damage to the elevator

pushrod and result in failure of the

elevator pushrod with consequent loss

of control of the sailplane.

Relevant Service Information

Alexander Schleicher has issued

Technical Note No. 26, dated July 1,

1993, which specifies procedures for the

following:

—Drilling a drainage hole in the

elevator pushrod; and

—Inspecting the elevator pushrod for

corrosion damage.

The LBA classified this service

bulletin as mandatory and issued

German AD No. 93–186, dated

September 15, 1993, in order to assure

the continued airworthiness of these

sailplanes in Germany.

The FAA’s Determination

This sailplane 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, including the service

information referenced above; and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Alexander Schleicher

Model ASK–21 sailplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States sailplanes that do not have a

certain automatic elevator connection

installed, the FAA is proposing AD

action. The proposed AD would require

drilling a drainage hole in the elevator

pushrod, inspecting the elevator

pushrod for corrosion damage, and

replacing any elevator pushrod if a

certain amount of corrosion damage is

found. Accomplishment of the proposed

installation would be in accordance

with the service bulletin previously

referenced.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 30 sailplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 workhour per sailplane

to accomplish the proposed elevator

pushrod drainage hole drilling and

elevator pushrod inspection, and that

the average labor rate is approximately

$60 an hour. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,800,

or $60 per sailplane.

Compliance Time of the Proposed AD

The unsafe condition specified by the

proposed AD is caused by corrosion.

Corrosion can occur regardless of

whether the sailplane is in operation or

is in storage. Therefore, to assure that

the unsafe condition specified in the

proposed AD does not go undetected for

a long period of time, the compliance

time is presented in calendar time

instead of hours time-in-service (TIS).

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 action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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 has been placed 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau:

Docket No. 97–CE–109–AD.

Applicability: Model ASK–21 sailplanes,

serial numbers 21–001 through 21–205,

certificated in any category, that do not have

an automatic elevator connection installed in

accordance with Alexander Schleicher

Technical Note No. 11, dated December 20,

1983.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane

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

sailplanes that have been modified, altered,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66569

1Regulation 33.4 in pertinent part states:

Sec. 33.4 Designation as a contract market for the

trading of commodity options.

The Commission may designate any board of

trade * * * as a contract market for the trading of

options on contracts of sale for future delivery

* * * when the applicant complies with and

carries out the requirements of the Act (as provided

in § 33.2), these relations, and the following

conditions and requirements with respect to the

commodity option for which the designation is

sought:

(a) Such board of trade * * *

(2) Provides that the clearing organization must

receive from each of its clearing members, that each

clearing member must receive from each other

person for whom its clears commodity option

transactions, and that each futures commission

merchant must receive from each of its option

customers, the full amount of each option premium

at the time the option is purchased.

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 (d) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent failure of the elevator pushrod

caused by corrosion damage, which could

result in loss of control of the sailplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 3 calendar months after

the effective date of this AD, drill a drainage

hole in the elevator pushrod in accordance

with Alexander Schleicher Technical Note

No. 26, dated July 1, 1993.

(b) Within the next 3 calendar months after

the effective date of this AD, inspect the

elevator pushrod for corrosion damage in

accordance with Alexander Schleicher

Technical Note No. 26, dated July 1, 1993.

(1) If no corrosion damage is found or

corrosion damage is found that does not

exceed the amount specified in the service

bulletin, prior to further flight after the

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, apply a corrosion agent as described in

the service bulletin.

(2) If corrosion damage is found that

exceeds the amount specified in the service

bulletin, prior to further flight after the

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, replace the elevator pushrod in

accordance with the maintenance manual,

and apply a corrosion agent as described in

the service bulletin.

(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 sailplane

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request

shall be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(e) Questions or technical information

related to Alexander Schleicher Technical

Note No. 26, dated July 1, 1993, should be

directed to Alexander Schleicher

Segelflugzeugbau, 6416 Poppenhausen,

Wasserkuppe, Federal Republic of Germany;

telephone: 49.6658.890 or 49.6658.8920;

facsimile: 49.6658.8923 or 49.6658.8940.

This service information may be examined at

the FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German AD No. 93–186, dated September

15, 1993.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 11, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33147 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 1 and 33

Proposed Rulemaking Permitting

Future-Style Margining of Commodity

Options

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is

proposing the repeal of Commission

Regulation 33.4(a)(2) which requires the

full upfront payment of commodity

option premiums. The effect of the

repeal would be to permit the futuresstyle margining of commodity options

traded on regulated futures exchanges.

Futures-style margining offers several

potential benefits over the current

margining system, including the

possibility for more efficient cash flows

across markets. The Commission is

publishing notice of the proposed

rulemaking and requesting public

comment.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

rulemaking must be received by

February 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Jean A. Webb, Secretary,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

20581; transmitted by facsimile to (202)

418–5521; or transmitted electronically

to (secretary@cftc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Smith, Attorney, Division of

Trading and Markets, Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, Three

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20581. Telephone (202)

418–5495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The Commission is proposing the

repeal of Commission Regulation

33.4(a)(2). Regulation 33.4(a)(2) requires

that, when a commodity option is

purchased, each clearing member must

pay to the clearinghouse, each member

must pay to the clearing member, and

each option customer must pay to the

futures commission merchant (‘‘FCM’’)

the full option premium.1 The

Commission is considering repealing

this regulation in order to permit the

‘‘futures-style margining’’ of commodity

options.

A futures-style margining system for

options would include two components:

Original margin, set according to the

underlying risk, and variation margin,

reflecting the daily change in the value

of the option premium. Consistent with

the current treatment of futures

positions, long and short option

positions would be marked-to-market,

and gains and losses would be paid and

collected daily. Futures-style margining

may benefit market participants by

improving cash flow in futures and

options markets generally, thereby

increasing liquidity and efficiency.

II. Background

A. Option Pilot Program

In 1981 the Commission instituted a

pilot program for exchange-traded

options on non-agricultural futures

contracts. 46 FR 54500 (November 3,

1981). Concurrently, the Commission

adopted Part 33 of its regulations,

including the full-payment-of-premium

requirement of Regulation 33.4(a)(2).

In approving the pilot program, the

Commission was cognizant of the

history of fraudulent practices

associated with the offer and sale of

commodity options to the general

public. In this connection, the

Commission proceeded cautiously by,

among other things, prohibiting the

margining of option premiums. The

Commission viewed the full payment of

option premiums ‘‘as essential to the

protection of option purchasers who

otherwise could reasonably expect that

an initial payment of margin on an

option contract constituted the full