13502 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Page No. Revision level shown on

page Date shown on page

1–4, 10–12 .......................................................................................................................... 1 ........................................... March 21, 1994.

5–9, 13–20 .......................................................................................................................... Original ................................. October 7, 1993.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Fokker Services B.V., Technical

Support Department, P.O. Box 75047, 1117

ZN Schiphol Airport, the Netherlands.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 93–

147/2 (A), dated April 29, 1994.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

April 24, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

11, 1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–6949 Filed 3–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–NM–193–AD; Amendment

39–10404; AD 98–06–26]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker

Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Fokker Model F28

Mark 0100 series airplanes, that requires

repetitive inspections to detect

corrosion in the wheel axles of the main

landing gear (MLG) sliding members;

and rework of any corroded areas, an

inspection to detect cracks in the wheel

axles, and replacement of any cracked

sliding member. This AD provides for

interim actions that may be

accomplished in lieu of the repetitive

inspections. This AD also requires

eventual modifications of the main

wheel brake units and the MLG sliding

members; when accomplished, these

modifications terminate the repetitive

inspections and interim actions. This

amendment is prompted by a report of

failure of an MLG wheel axle during

push back of an in-service airplane from

the terminal. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent failure

of the MLG wheel axle due to problems

associated with corrosion and cracking.

DATES: Effective April 24, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of April 24,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Fokker Services B.V., Technical

Support Department, P.O. Box 75047,

1117 ZN Schiphol Airport, the

Netherlands. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Fokker

Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes

was published as a supplemental notice

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the

Federal Register on September 9, 1996

(61 FR 47462). That supplemental

NPRM proposed to require repetitive

inspections to detect corrosion in the

wheel axles of the main landing gear

(MLG) sliding members; and rework of

any corroded areas, an inspection to

detect cracks in the wheel axles, and

replacement of any cracked sliding

member. That supplemental NPRM

proposed to provide for interim actions

that may be accomplished in lieu of the

repetitive inspections. That

supplemental NPRM also proposed to

require eventual modifications of the

main wheel brake units and the MLG

sliding members; when accomplished,

these modifications terminate the

repetitive inspections and interim

actions.

Consideration of Comments Received

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request To Allow Terminating Action

To Be Optional Rather Than Mandated

The Air Transport Association (ATA)

of America, representing a member

airline, requests that the terminating

action of this AD be allowed as an

option to the repetitive inspections

rather than be mandated. This

commenter states that the Dutch

airworthiness directive does not

mandate the modification as terminating

action.

The FAA does not concur with this

request and, as cited in the

supplemental NPRM, the FAA has

determined that long-term continued

operational safety will be better assured

by design changes to remove the source

of the problem, rather than by repetitive

inspections. However, under the

provisions of paragraph (g) of the final

rule, the FAA may consider requests for

approval of an alternative method of

compliance if sufficient data are

submitted to substantiate that such an

alternative method would provide an

acceptable level of safety.

Request To Use Long-Term Inspections

To Ensure Level of Safety

The ATA, on behalf of one member,

states that the member does not agree

with the FAA’s statement (in the

preamble of the NPRM) that ‘‘Long-term

inspections may not be providing the

degree of safety assurance necessary for

the transport airplane fleet.’’ This

commenter also states that the concept

that inspections do not provide the

degree of safety required runs contrary

to established industry principles and

FAA advisory material. In addition, the

commenter states that the Certification

Maintenance Requirements (CMR’s) are

an example whereby repetitive tasks are

defined as operating limitations in order

to detect latent failures that could lead

to hazardous or catastrophic failure

conditions. Further, the commenter

states that damage tolerance concepts

for structural elements similarly rely on

a well-defined inspection program to

maintain safety by ensuring that fatigue
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 13503

cracking is detected before the critical

crack length is reached.

The FAA does not concur that the

statement regarding long-term

inspections is inappropriate for

inclusion in the final rule, although the

FAA agrees that clarification of this

statement may be necessary. The FAA

requires CMR items and damage

tolerance inspections to ensure

compliance with the airworthiness

standards for type certification. The

FAA also maintains that the

requirement for such inspections is a

result of a design methodology, and

these inspections are necessary for

maintaining the type design in an

airworthy condition. However, the FAA

points out that the inspections required

by this final rule result from in-service

cracking in a known area, which could

lead to an unsafe condition. For this

reason, the FAA has determined that the

statement that ‘‘long term inspections

may not be providing the degree of

safety assurance’’ is appropriately used

in this case because an unsafe condition

exists.

Request To Allow Operators To Revise

Maintenance Inspection Programs

The ATA, representing two member

airlines, requests adding a new

provision to the final rule that would

allow an alternative to the

accomplishment of the inspection

procedures required by this AD. This

alternative action would specify that if

operators revise their maintenance

inspection programs to include the

actions specified by this AD, then the

AD would no longer be applicable and

these operators could use an alternative

recordkeeping method to that required

by the AD. The ATA further

recommends that the FAA not be

involved in the continued oversight of

the proposed inspection since it will

likely continue for the life of the

airplane. One operator states that the

inspection procedure could be

controlled more efficiently and allow

more adaptability if it were included in

each operator’s FAA-approved

maintenance program, which could be

coordinated with each operator’s FAA

principal maintenance inspector (PMI).

This operator also states that if a

regulatory mandate is required by the

FAA, a better option would be to

incorporate the most recent inspection

procedures as an Airworthiness

Limitation through the F100

Maintenance Review Board (MRB)

process rather than issuance of a new

AD.

A second commenter maintains that

its inspection program has provided the

required level of safety and that no

failures of MLG axles have occurred

since the introduction of the inspection

program in 1994. Another commenter

states that industry principles and FAA

advisory material accept inspection

programs as a satisfactory means of

monitoring structural integrity and that

the adequacy of such programs has been

demonstrated by in-service experience.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests to revise their

maintenance inspection programs to

include the actions specified by this AD.

The ATA’s suggested alternative to

accomplishment of the actions required

by this AD would permit each operator

to determine whether and how often

these actions should be accomplished.

In light of the identified unsafe

condition, however, the FAA has

determined that allowing this degree of

operator discretion is not appropriate.

Therefore, this AD is necessary to

ensure that operators accomplish the

required actions in a common manner

and at common intervals.

Requests To Extend Compliance

Periods for Modification of the MLG

The ATA, representing a member

airline, states that the compliance time

for accomplishment of the modification

required by paragraph (e) of the

proposal is too stringent and that a

typical period for landing gear overhaul

is in the range of 3 to 5 years. One

commenter states that the timing of the

mandated modification does not fit into

any normal aircraft check period and, as

such, will force carriers to take airplanes

out of service and obtain otherwise

unneeded landing gear assemblies. This

commenter maintains that the delivery

schedule for the number of airplanes

that would be required to support the

industry would make it impossible to

comply with the proposed AD. The

commenter states that any mandate to

modify the MLG at any time that is not

flexible enough to be accomplished

during each carrier’s established landing

gear overhaul period also should be

opposed.

These commenters request changing

the proposed compliance time specified

in paragraph (e) of the proposal from

‘‘At the next major gear overhaul, or

within 4,400 landings after

accomplishment of the initial inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD,

whichever occurs first. * * *’’ to ‘‘At

the next major gear overhaul, or within

4 years after the effective date of the

proposed rule, whichever occurs later.

* * *’’ The FAA infers from these

remarks that the commenters request an

extension for accomplishment of the

modification.

The FAA concurs partially with these

requests. The FAA concurs with the

requests to extend the compliance time

for completion of the modification and

considers that the repetitive inspections

required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this AD will provide an adequate level

of safety until such modification is

completed. The FAA has determined

that extending the compliance time will

provide operators additional time to

complete the modification and, at the

same time, allow sufficient time to

adequately address the unsafe

condition. However, the FAA does not

concur with the request to change

‘‘whichever occurs first’’ to ‘‘whichever

occurs later’’ because it has determined

that ‘‘later’’ (which refers to the next

scheduled maintenance) does not

provide a definitive compliance time.

The FAA concurs with the request to

change the compliance time specified in

paragraph (e) of this final rule from

‘‘within 4,400 landings.’’ However, the

FAA does not concur with the request

to change the number of landings to 4

years and, instead, has determined that

5 years is more appropriate because it

corresponds more closely to most

operators’ ‘‘heavy’’ maintenance

schedules. Paragraph (e) of the final rule

is changed to read ‘‘At the next major

gear overhaul, or within 5 years after the

effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first. * * *’’

Request To Revise the Cost Estimate To

Include the Terminating Actions

Two commenters request a revision of

the cost impact information, below, to

more accurately reflect the cost

associated with accomplishment of the

terminating modification. These

commenters state that accomplishment

of the terminating action requires

removal of the MLG from the airplane

and rework in the shop, and that

because this action will be outside the

usual maintenance for the MLG,

operators may incur additional cost due

to the need for a loaner gear to support

the shop repair cycle.

The FAA does not concur with these

requests to revise the cost estimate. The

FAA points out that the compliance

time for accomplishment of the

terminating action has been extended in

this final rule. This extension will likely

allow operators to accomplish the

terminating action during a major gear

overhaul. Therefore, there is no

additional cost associated with the

removal of the MLG outside regularly

scheduled maintenance.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted
13504 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 125 Fokker

Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 14 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required visual inspection, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

visual inspection of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $105,000, or

$840 per airplane.

It will take approximately 66 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required terminating modifications, at

an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts will cost

approximately $865 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

required terminating modification of

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $603,125, or $4,825 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the repetitive visual

inspections that would be provided by

this AD action, it would take

approximately 14 work hours to

accomplish each repetitive inspection,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. The FAA estimates that these

inspections would be accomplished four

times per year. Based on these figures,

the cost impact of the repetitive

inspections on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $3,360 per airplane, per

year.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the interim actions that

would be provided by this AD action, it

would take approximately 26 work

hours for the rework, and 26 work hours

per airplane for the brake unit

replacement. It would take between 28

to 168 work hours per year for the

sampling program, depending on the

size of an operator’s fleet. The average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. The cost

for required parts would be

approximately $865 per airplane.

Additionally, once these interim actions

are accomplished, the cost impact of the

terminating modifications discussed

previously would be reduced by $2,400

per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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:

98–06–26 Fokker: Amendment 39–10404.

Docket 93–NM–193–AD.

Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series

airplanes equipped with Dowty Aerospace

main landing gear (MLG) part number

201072011, 201072012, 201072013,

201072014, 201072015, or 201072016;

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 (g) 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 MLG wheel axle

due to problems associated with corrosion

and cracking, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, remove the MLG wheels and

brakes and perform a visual inspection to

detect corrosion and cracking in the wheel

axles of the MLG sliding members in

accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin

F100–32–079, Revision 1, dated October 4,

1993, and paragraph 2.A. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty

Aerospace Service Bulletin F100–32–63,

Revision 2, dated September 23, 1993.

(b) Following accomplishment of the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, accomplish either paragraph (b)(1) or

(b)(2) of this AD.

(1) Repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3 months in

accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin

SBF100–32–080, dated October 4, 1993, and

Dowty Aerospace Service Bulletin F100–32–

64, Revision 1, dated February 18, 1994, until

the actions required by paragraph (e) of this

AD are accomplished. Or

(2) Accomplish paragraphs (b)(2)(i),

(b)(2)(ii), and (b)(2)(iii) of this AD at the times

specified in those paragraphs in accordance

with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–

083, dated March 23, 1994.

(i) Within 3 months after the

accomplishment of an inspection required by

paragraph (a) or (b)(1) of this AD: Rework the

axles in accordance with Part 2 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin. Repeat this rework thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 12 months or 2,200

landings, whichever occurs first. And

(ii) Prior to or concurrent with

accomplishing the initial rework specified in

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this AD: Replace the

main wheel brake units in accordance with

Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of

the service bulletin. And

(iii) Within 3 months after the first

accomplishment of the rework required by

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this AD: Begin

performing interim inspections (‘‘sampling

program’’) to detect corrosion and cracking in

the wheel axles of the MLG sliding members,

in accordance with Part 3 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin. Perform these inspections at the

intervals specified in the service bulletin

until the actions required by paragraph (e) of

this AD are accomplished.

(c) If any corrosion is found during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, rework the affected area and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 13505

perform a non-destructive testing (NDT)

inspection to detect cracks in the MLG wheel

axles, in accordance with Appendix A of

Dowty Aerospace Service Bulletin F100–32–

63, Revision 2, dated September 23, 1993 (if

corrosion is found during the initial

inspection required by this AD); or Dowty

Aerospace Service Bulletin F100–32–64,

Revision 1, dated February 18, 1994 (if

corrosion is found during a repetitive

inspection required by this AD); as

applicable. After rework, perform repetitive

inspections of the affected area in accordance

with paragraph (b)(1) of this AD until the

actions required by paragraph (e) of this AD

are accomplished.

(d) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, replace the affected sliding

member with a serviceable sliding member in

accordance with Dowty Aerospace Service

Bulletin F100–32–63, Revision 2, dated

September 23, 1993 (if any crack is found

during the initial inspection required by this

AD); or Dowty Aerospace Service Bulletin

F100–32–64, Revision 1, dated February 18,

1994 (if any crack is found during a repetitive

inspection required by this AD); as

applicable. After replacement of the affected

sliding member, perform the repetitive

inspections in accordance with paragraph

(b)(1) of this AD until the actions required by

paragraph (e) of this AD are accomplished.

(e) At the next major gear overhaul, or

within 5 years after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs first: Rework the

sliding member, and replace the main wheel

brake units in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker

Service Bulletin SBF100–32–081, dated

March 23, 1994. Accomplishment of these

actions constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspections and the interim actions

specified in paragraph (b) of this AD.

Note 2: Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–

32–081 refers to Dowty Aerospace Service

Bulletin F100–32–64, Revision 1, dated

February 18, 1994, as an additional source of

service information for accomplishment of

the rework and replacement.

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

person shall install a Dowty Aerospace MLG,

part number 201072011, 201072012,

201072013, 201072014, 201072015, or

201072016, on any airplane unless the

requirements of this AD have been

accomplished on that MLG. Following its

installation, the repetitive inspections

required by paragraph (b) of this AD shall be

accomplished on that MLG.

(g) 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,

International Branch, ANM–116, 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, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(h) 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.

(i) The actions shall be done in accordance

with the following Fokker service bulletins or

Dowty Aerospace service bulletins, as

applicable, which contain the specified

effective pages:

Service bulletin referenced and date Page No. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page

Fokker SBF100–32–079, Revision 1, October 4, 1993 ....................... 1–3

4

1 ....................................................

Original .........................................

October 4, 1993.

August 2, 1993.

Fokker SBF100–32–080, October 4, 1993 .......................................... 1–4 Original ......................................... October 4, 1993.

Fokker SBF100–32–081, March 23, 1994 ........................................... 1–6 Original ......................................... March 23, 1994.

Fokker SBF100–32–083, March 23, 1994 ........................................... 1–6 Original ......................................... March 23, 1994.

Dowty Aerospace F100–32–63, Revision 2, September 23, 1993 ...... 1–3

4

2 ....................................................

Original .........................................

September 23, 1993.

July 29, 1993.

Appendix A ........................................................................................... 1–2 Original ......................................... July 29, 1993

Appendix B ........................................................................................... 1 2 .................................................... September 23, 1993.

Dowty Aerospace F100–32–64, Revision 1, February 18, 1994 ......... 1–6 1 .................................................... February 18, 1994.

Appendix A ........................................................................................... 1–2 Original ......................................... September 23, 1993.

Appendix B ........................................................................................... 1 Original ......................................... September 23, 1993.

Appendix C ........................................................................................... 1 1 .................................................... February 18, 1994.

The incorporation by reference of these

documents was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from Fokker Services B.V.,

Technical Support Department, P.O. Box

75047, 1117 ZN Schiphol Airport, the

Netherlands. Copies may be inspected at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Dutch airworthiness directive BLA No.

93–108/2 (A), dated November 1, 1993.

(j) This amendment becomes effective on

April 24, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

11, 1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–6948 Filed 3–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–109–AD; Amendment

39–10417; AD 98–06–38]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alexander

Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau Model

ASK–21 Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to Alexander Schleicher

Segelflugzeugbau (Alexander

Schleicher) Model ASK–21 sailplanes

that do not have a certain automatic

elevator connection installed. This AD

requires 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. This AD is the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for Germany.

The actions specified by this 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: Effective April 28, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of April 28,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau,

6416 Poppenhausen, Wasserkuppe,

Federal Republic of Germany;

telephone: 49.6658.890 or 49.6658.8920;