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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20555

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 98–NM–16–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.

98–NM–16–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On August 7, 1992, the FAA issued

AD 92–18–04, amendment 39–8348 (57

FR 38432, August 25, 1992), applicable

to certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark

1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 series

airplanes, to require an inspection to

detect free movement of the actuator

servo-valve sub-assembly of the

horizontal stabilizer actuator, and

replacement, if necessary. That action

was prompted by a report of a

horizontal stabilizer malfunction and

subsequent uncommanded stabilizer

movement caused by a broken spool in

the actuator servo-valve assembly of the

horizontal stabilizer control unit. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent uncommanded trimming or

failure of the trim system of the

horizontal stabilizer.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

manufacturer and the

Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is

the airworthiness authority for the

Netherlands, have determined that

currently installed servo-valve subassemblies of the horizontal stabilizer

may have suffered damage as a result of

excessive control forces experienced

during past heavy operation. This

damage could result in a dormant

failure of the actuator servo-valve

assembly of the horizontal stabilizer

control unit. This condition, if not

corrected, could lead to an

uncommanded nose-up trimming

condition in the event of a horizontal

stabilizer servo-valve failure, and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Fokker has issued Service Bulletin

F28/27–183, dated November 21, 1994,

which describes procedures for a onetime inspection to determine the

residual strength of the servo-valve subassembly of the horizontal stabilizer

actuator, and replacement of the

actuator with a new or serviceable

actuator, if necessary. The service

bulletin also describes procedures for

replacement of the horizontal stabilizer

actuator with an improved actuator that

incorporates a revised servo-valve creep

rate. This replacement is intended to

ensure that a failure of the horizontal

stabilizer actuator would result in a

nose-down trim position. The RLD

classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued Dutch

airworthiness directive 1992–077/2(A),

dated January 31, 1995, in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in the Netherlands.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in the Netherlands and

are 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, the RLD has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the RLD,

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

supersede AD 92–18–04 to continue to

require an inspection to detect free

movement of the actuator servo-valve

sub-assembly of the horizontal stabilizer

actuator, and replacement, if necessary.

The proposed AD also would require a

one-time inspection to determine the

residual strength of the servo-valve subassembly 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. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 27 airplanes

of U.S. registry that would be affected

by this proposed AD.

The inspection that is currently

required by AD 92–18–04 would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the currently

required actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1,620, or $60 per

airplane.

The inspection that is proposed in

this new AD action would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed inspection of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $3,240, or

$120 per airplane.

The replacement proposed in this

new AD action would take

approximately 8 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would be provided by

the manufacturer at no cost to the

operator. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed replacement

of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $12,960, or $480 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or 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,
20556 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–8348 (57 FR

38432, August 25, 1992), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Fokker: Docket 98–NM–16-AD. Supersedes

AD 92–18–04, Amendment 39–8348.

Applicability: Model F.28 Mark 1000,

2000, 3000, and 4000 series airplanes;

equipped with Menasco horizontal stabilizer

actuators having part number (P/N)

11100-( ); 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 (e) 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 trimming or

failure of the trim system of the horizontal

stabilizer, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 20 days after September 9, 1992

(the effective date of AD 92–18–04,

amendment 39–8348), perform an inspection

of the servo-valve sub-assembly rod-end

bearing and servo-valve sub-assembly for

movement, in accordance with Fokker

Service Bulletin F28/27–180, dated July 3,

1992.

(1) If the servo-valve sub-assembly rod-end

bearing and servo-valve sub-assembly move

freely within the load limits specified in the

service bulletin, reassemble and conduct a

functional test, in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(2) If the servo-valve sub-assembly rod-end

bearing or servo-valve sub-assembly require

higher loads for movement than specified in

the service bulletin, prior to further flight,

remove and replace the horizontal stabilizer

control unit with a serviceable control unit

that has been inspected and found to be

within the load limits of the service bulletin,

or that has been inspected and repaired in

accordance with Chapter 27–42–4 of the

Menasco Overhaul Manual (OHM), as revised

by Temporary Revision Number 3, dated July

10, 1992.

(b) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time inspection to

determine the residual strength of the servovalve sub-assembly of the horizontal

stabilizer actuator, in accordance with Part 1

of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Fokker Service Bulletin F28/27–183, dated

November 21, 1994. If any discrepancy is

found, prior to further flight, replace the

actuator with a new or serviceable actuator

in accordance with the service bulletin.

(c) Within 3 years after the effective date

of this AD, replace the horizontal stabilizer

actuator with an actuator that has been

modified and re-marked in accordance with

Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Fokker Service Bulletin F28/27–183, dated

November 21, 1994.

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

person shall install a horizontal stabilizer

control unit on any airplane, unless the

horizontal stabilizer actuator has been

modified and re-marked in accordance with

Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Fokker Service Bulletin F28/27–183, dated

November 21, 1994.

(e) 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(f) 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Dutch airworthiness directive 1992–007/

2(A), dated January 31, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11092 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–302–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream

Aerospace Corporation Model G–159

(G–I) 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 all

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation

Model G–159 (G–I) airplanes. This

proposal would require revising the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

modify the limitation that prohibits

positioning the power levers below the

flight idle stop during flight, and to

provide a statement of the consequences

of positioning the power levers below

the flight idle stop during flight. This

proposal is prompted by incidents and

accidents involving airplanes equipped

with turboprop engines in which the

ground propeller beta range was used

improperly during flight. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended 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.

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–

302–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.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,