This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

1061

Vol. 62, No. 5

Wednesday, January 8, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–100–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream

Model BAe ATP 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 Jetstream Model BAe ATP series

airplanes. This proposal would require

modification of certain parts in the

elevator flight control system and the

propeller pitch warning system. This

proposal is prompted by a report

indicating that these parts could

interfere with the proper operation of

these systems. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent the flight crew from having to

engage the standby elevator control

system in order to regulate the pitch of

the airplane; and to prevent

malfunctioning of the pitch warning

system for the propellers; either of

which could lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

100–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

Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 16029,

Dulles International Airport,

Washington, DC 20041–6029. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 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–100–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–100–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom, recently notified

the FAA that two unrelated unsafe

conditions, which could lead to similar

consequences, may exist on certain

Jetstream Model BAe ATP series

airplanes. The CAA advises that it has

received a report indicating that there

have been occurrences of restriction or

interference with movement of the

elevator flight control system on some of

these airplanes. The manufacturer

conducted a zonal survey of this

airplane model to detect where

movement of these controls could be

impeded. That survey revealed the

following information:

The flight control system for the

elevators, which is located in an area

under the flight deck, has small

clearances between some of its

components and surrounding structures.

This design creates the potential for

foreign objects to interfere with or

restrict movement of the stop lever for

this system’s bellcrank assembly. If

movement of this lever is impeded, the

flight crew must engage the standby

control system for the elevators, which

enables one, but not both elevators to be

operated. When only one elevator is

working, it becomes more difficult for

the flight crew to control the pitch of the

airplane. This condition, if not

corrected, could lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane.

The zonal survey also indicated that

there could be interference with the

controls for the propeller pitch warning

system on airplanes on which Jetstream

Modification 35205A has been installed.

(That modification is described in

Jetstream Service Bulletin ATP–53–19,

dated January 13, 1993, which contains

procedures for installing of two access

panels in the floor of the flight deck to

make it easier for maintenance

personnel to adjust the microswitches

for the powerplant.). During normal

operation of this system, a green

warning light stays on when the

propellers are in low pitch and the

airplane does not exceed 60 knots

Indicated Airspeed (IAS); when that

airspeed is exceeded, a red warning

light comes on and the flight crew

knows that the pitch of the propellers

must be increased. Should a retaining

cord on the access panel impede

operation of the microswitches, the

green warning light could remain on

when the airplane is flying at a speed

greater than 60 knots IAS, and the flight
1062 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

crew may not be immediately aware of

the need to increase propeller pitch.

This malfunctioning of the propeller

low pitch warning system, if not

corrected, could lead to the propeller

operating at low pitch and high

airspeed, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Jetstream has issued Service Bulletin

ATP–27–78, Revision 1, dated January

31, 1996, which describes procedures

for modification of the stop lever for the

bellcrank assembly in the elevator flight

control system. This modification,

which entails shortening the lever and

thus increasing clearance at its end, is

intended to remove potential

impediments to proper movement of the

lever.

This service bulletin also describes

procedures for modification of the two

access panels to the powerplant

microswitches on airplanes that have

been fitted with Jetstream Modification

35205A. This modification, which

entails removal of the retaining cords on

these panels, is intended to remove

potential impediments to proper

operation of these switches and the

propeller pitch warning system.

The CAA classified this service

bulletin as mandatory and issued British

airworthiness directive 003–12–95,

dated January 31, 1996, 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 unsafe conditions have been

identified that are likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

modification of the stop lever for the

bellcrank assembly of the elevator flight

control system. It also would require

that retaining cords on the access panels

to the powerplant microswitches be

removed from airplanes on which

Jetstream Modification 35205A has been

installed previously.

These actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 10 Jetstream

Model BAe ATP series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 7 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed modification of the stop lever

for the bellcrank assembly of the

elevator flight control system, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed modification of this

lever on U.S. operators is estimated to

be $4,200, or $420 per airplane.

It would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

proposed removal of the retaining cords

on airplanes that have been fitted with

Jetstream Modification 35205A. The

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of this proposed removal on U.S.

operators of airplanes fitted with

Jetstream Modification 35205A is

estimated to be $600, or $60 per

airplane.

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

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:

Jetstream Aircraft Limited (Formerly British

Aerospace Commercial Aircraft

Limited): Docket 96–NM–100–AD.

Applicability: Model BAe ATP series

airplanes as listed in Jetstream Service

Bulletin ATP–27–78, Revision 1, dated

January 31, 1996; 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 the flight crew from having to

engage the standby elevator control system in

order to regulate the pitch of the airplane,

and to prevent malfunctioning of the pitch

warning system for the propellers, either of

which could lead to reduced controllability

of the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes on which Jetstream

Modification 35205A has been installed:

Within 3 months after the effective date of

this AD, remove the retaining cords on the

access panels to the powerplant

microswitches, in accordance with Part 2 of

Jetstream Service Bulletin ATP–27–78,

Revision 1, dated January 31, 1996.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1063

Note 2: Jetstream Modification 35202A is

described in Jetstream Service Bulletin ATP–

53–19, dated January 13, 1993.

(b) For all airplanes: Within 18 months

after the effective date of this AD, modify the

stop lever for the bellcrank assembly of the

elevator flight control system, in accordance

with Part 1 of Jetstream Service Bulletin

ATP–27–78, Revision 1, dated January 31,

1996.

(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 3: 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 January

2, 1997.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–363 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–AWP–34]

Proposed Revision of Class D and

Class E Airspace; Los Angeles, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise

Class D and Class E airspace areas at Los

Angeles, CA. This action is a reduction

of the surface areas for the Los Angeles

Hawthorne Municipal Airport, CA. A

review of airspace classification and air

traffic procedures has made this action

necessary. The intended effect of this

proposal is to reduce the complexity of

the air traffic procedures and reduce the

number of facilities controlling traffic

within this area.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Attn:

Manager, Operations Branch, AWP–530,

Docket No. 96–AWP–34, Air Traffic

Division, P.O. Box 92007, Worldway

Postal Center, Los Angeles, California

90009.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Western Pacific Region,

Federal Aviation Administration, Room

6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,

Lawndale, California 90261.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business at the

Office of the Manager, Operations

Branch, Air Traffic Division at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Buck, Airspace Specialist,

Operations Branch, AWP–530, Air

Traffic Division, Western-Pacific

Region, Federal Aviation

Administration, 15000 Aviation

Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261,

telephone (310) 725–6556.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented as particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with the comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96–

AWP–14.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Operations Branch,

Air Traffic Division, at 15000 Aviation

Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261,

both before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Operations

Branch, P.O. Box 92007, Worldway

Postal Center, Los Angeles, CA 90009.

Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRM’s should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, which describes the application

procedures.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

revise Class D and Class E airspace areas

at Los Angeles Hawthorne Municipal

Airport, CA. During airspace

reclassification, the Hawthorne Airport

Traffic Area (ATA) and the Los Angeles

ATA were combined to form the

Hawthorne Class D airspace. A review

of airspace classification and air traffic

procedures has made this action

necessary. The intended effect of this

proposal is to reduce the complexity of

the air traffic procedures and reduce the

number of facilities controlling traffic

within this area. Class D airspace areas

are published in Paragraph 5000 and

Class E airspace designations for

airspace areas designated as an

extention to a Class D or Class E surface

area are published in Paragraph 6004 of

FAA Order 7400.9D dated September 4,

1996, and effective September 16, 1996,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E

airspace designation listed in this

document would be published

subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current.

Therefore, this proposed regulation—(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 10034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.