20552 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the proposed

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$14,100, 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:

Embraer: Docket 97–NM–304–AD.

Applicability: All Model EMB–120 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 (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent loss of airplane controllability,

or engine overspeed and consequent loss of

engine power caused by the power levers

being positioned below the flight idle stop

while the airplane is in flight, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of

the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to include the following statements.

This action may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

‘‘Positioning of power levers below the

flight idle stop in flight is prohibited. Such

positioning may result in an engine

overspeed condition with consequent loss of

engine and potential excessive asymmetric

propeller drag reducing aircraft

controllability.’’

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO). Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Operations Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(c) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11101 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–336–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland

Model DHC–8–100, –200, and –300

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 de Havilland Model DHC–8–100,

–200, and –300 series airplanes. This

proposal would require modification of

the lever assembly of the roll disconnect

system. 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 uncommanded

disconnects of the roll control system,

which could result in a limited degree

of roll control and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

336–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

Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional

Aircraft Division, Garratt Boulevard,

Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,

New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony E. Gallo, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE–

172, FAA, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20553

11581; telephone (516) 256–7510; fax

(516) 568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 97–NM–336–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–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–336–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Transport Canada Aviation (TCA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain de

Havilland Model DHC–8–100, –200, and

–300 series airplanes. TCA advises that

it has received several reports of

uncommanded disconnects of the roll

control system during landing, while

the airplane was flying in turbulent

conditions. Such uncommanded

disconnects have been attributed to a

problem with the design of the lever

assembly of the roll disconnect system,

in which turbulence may cause the roll

control system to disconnect without a

member of the flightcrew moving the

cockpit disconnect handle.

Uncommanded disconnects of the roll

control system may be especially

hazardous if the flightcrew is unaware

that a disconnect has occurred. Such

uncommanded disconnects of the roll

control system, if not corrected, could

result in a limited degree of roll control

and consequent reduced controllability

of the airplane.

This airplane model is equipped with

a roll control system, which provides

roll control by interconnecting the

ailerons (which are controlled by inputs

from the copilot’s control wheel) and

the roll spoilers (which are controlled

by inputs from the pilot’s control

wheel), thus moving the pilot’s and

copilot’s control wheels in tandem. If

the roll control system jams, pulling the

disconnect handle of the roll disconnect

system (which is located in the cockpit)

disengages the roll control system.

Disengaging the roll control system

causes the pilot’s and copilot’s control

wheels to stop moving in tandem, and

allows the ailerons and roll spoilers to

be operated separately. Such separate

operation limits the degree of roll

control available through any one of the

control wheels and results in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–27–79,

Revision ‘A’, dated March 20, 1998,

which describes procedures for

modifying the lever assembly of the roll

disconnect system. The modification

involves inspecting the existing lever

return spring and replacing it with a

new spring, if necessary; drilling a new

hole in the lever assembly; filling the

original hole with sealant; and installing

the new spring with the lever end of the

spring connected to a new attachment

point for the lever return spring.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. TCA

classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued Canadian

airworthiness directive CF–98–04, dated

February 27, 1998, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Canada.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Canada and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29)

and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

TCA has kept the FAA informed of the

situation described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the TCA,

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 service bulletin described

previously, except as discussed below.

Difference Between This Proposed AD

and the Parallel Canadian AD and the

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that the service

bulletin recommends accomplishing the

action at ‘‘operators’ earliest

convenience,’’ and the parallel

Canadian airworthiness directive

requires compliance within 6 months.

In light of the criticality of the unsafe

condition (uncommanded disconnects

of the roll control system, which could

result in a limited degree of roll control

and consequent reduced controllability

of the airplane), the FAA finds a 3-

month compliance time for

accomplishing the proposed actions to

be warranted, in that it represents an

appropriate interval of time allowable

for affected airplanes to continue to

operate without compromising safety.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 180 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

modification, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $21,600, or $120 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
20554 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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:

De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 97–NM–336–AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–8–100, –200,

and –300 series airplanes on which

Bombardier Modification 8/2376 was not

accomplished during production; serial

numbers 003 through 294 inclusive, and 296

through 433 inclusive; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (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 uncommanded disconnects of

the roll control system, which could result in

a limited degree of roll control and

consequent reduced controllability of the

airplane; accomplish the following:

(a) Within 3 months after the effective date

of this AD, modify the lever assembly of the

roll disconnect system, in accordance with

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–27–79,

Revision ‘A’, dated March 20, 1998.

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

person shall install on the roll disconnect

system of any airplane a lever assembly

having part number 82710200–001.

(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, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, New York ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

(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 Canadian airworthiness directive CF–98–

04, dated February 27, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11093 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–16–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker

Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and

4000 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), applicable to certain

Fokker Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000,

3000, and 4000 series airplanes, that

currently requires an inspection to

detect free movement of the actuator

servo-valve sub-assembly of the

horizontal stabilizer actuator, and

replacement, if necessary. This action

would add a one-time inspection to

determine the residual strength of the

servo-valve sub-assembly of the

horizontal stabilizer actuator, and

replacement of the actuator with a new

or serviceable actuator, if necessary; and

eventual replacement of the horizontal

stabilizer actuator with an improved

actuator. 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 uncommanded

trimming or failure of the trim system of

the horizontal stabilizer, and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

16–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

Fokker Services B.V., Technical Support

Department, P.O. Box 75047, 1117 ZN

Schiphol Airport, the Netherlands. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

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:

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.