29148 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 97–110–

218(B), dated May 7, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14036 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–187–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier

Model 328 Series Airplanes Equipped

with Honeywell GP–300 Guidance and

Display Controller

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

Dornier Model 328 series airplanes, that

currently requires modification of

certain Honeywell GP–300 guidance

and display controllers. That AD was

prompted by reports of smoke and

fumes emitting from the Honeywell GP–

300 guidance and display controller due

to a defective light bulb; and a report of

failure of the autopilot to disconnect

manually. The actions specified by that

AD are intended to prevent a defective

light bulb from causing a short circuit

that emits smoke and fumes into the

cockpit; or causing damage to the circuit

cards and various components, which

may lock the autopilot into the engaged

mode. Locking of the autopilot into the

engaged mode could lead to the

inability of the pilot to disconnect the

autopilot, which could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane. This

action would require verification of

proper installation of the modification,

and repair, if necessary.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

187–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

Honeywell, Inc., Attn: Customer

Support Materiel, P.O. Box 21111,

Phoenix, Arizona 85036. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5220; fax (562) 627–5210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

Kirk Baker, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712;

telephone (562) 627–5345; fax (562)

627–5210.

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–187–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–187–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On May 31, 1996, the FAA issued AD

96–12–13, amendment 39–9656 (61 FR

29465, June 11, 1996), applicable to

certain Dornier Model 328 series

airplanes, to require modification of

certain Honeywell GP–300 guidance

and display controller. That action was

prompted by reports of smoke and

fumes emitting from the Honeywell GP–

300 guidance and display controller due

to a defective light bulb; and a report of

failure of the autopilot to disconnect

manually. The requirements of that AD

are intended to prevent a defective light

bulb from causing a short circuit that

emits smoke and fumes into the cockpit;

or causing damage to the circuit cards

and various components, which may

lock the autopilot into the engaged

mode. Locking of the autopilot into the

engaged mode could lead to the

inability of the pilot to disconnect the

autopilot, which could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 96–12–13,

the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which

is the airworthiness authority for

Germany, has advised the FAA that the

service bulletin issued by Honeywell

and referenced in AD 96–12–13 has

been misinterpreted by personnel at

Honeywell service centers. The LBA

advises that, on an in-service airplane,

a miswired unit of the GP–300 control

panel was found, which caused the

panel to overheat and generate smoke.

In addition, two miswired units were

found during the manufacturing

process. Such miswired units would

prevent the overheat protection device

from functioning and could lead to

smoke and fumes in the cockpit.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Honeywell Service Bulletin 7015327–

22–4, dated March 31, 1997, which

describes procedures for verification of

proper installation of the modification

by re-testing the circuit card assemblies,

and repair, if necessary. The LBA

classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued German

airworthiness directive 96–239/2, dated

June 19, 1997, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Germany.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 29149

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Germany 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,

the LBA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the LBA,

reviewed all available information, 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 96–12–13 to continue to

require modification of certain

Honeywell GP–300 guidance and

display controllers. The proposed AD

also would add a requirement for

verification of proper installation of the

modification of Honeywell GP–300

guidance and display controller, and

repair, if necessary. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 50 Dornier

Model 328–100 series airplanes of U.S.

registry that would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 96–12–13, and retained

in this proposed AD, take approximately

7 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts will

be provided by the manufacturer at no

cost to the operators. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the currently

required actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $21,000, or $420 per

airplane.

The new actions that are proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 4 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 requirements of this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$12,000, or $240 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,

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 39–9656 (61 FR

29465, June 11, 1996), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Docket 97–NM–

187–AD. Supersedes AD 96–12–13,

Amendment 39–9656.

Applicability: Model 328–100 airplanes,

equipped with Honeywell GP–300 guidance

and display controller having part number

(P/N) 7015327–901 or –902; 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 (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 a defective light bulb from

causing a short circuit that emits smoke and

fumes into the cockpit, or causing damage to

the circuit cards and various components,

which may lock the autopilot into the

engaged mode, accomplish the following:

Restatement of Requirements of AD 96–12–

13, Amendment 39–9656

(a) Within 60 days after June 26, 1996 (the

effective date of AD 96–12–13, amendment

39–9656), modify the Honeywell GP–300

guidance and display controller, having P/N

7015327–901 or –902, in accordance with

Honeywell Service Bulletin 7015327–22–2,

dated March 4, 1996.

New Requirements of this AD

(b) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, verify that the wiring of the

Honeywell GP–300 guidance and display

controller is correct by conducting a re-test

of the circuit card assemblies, in accordance

with Honeywell Service Bulletin 7015327–

22–4, dated March 31, 1997. If any

discrepancy is found, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

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, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German airworthiness directive 96–239/2,

dated June 19, 1997.
29150 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14035 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–112–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier

Model 328–100 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 all

Dornier Model 328–100 series airplanes.

This proposal would require a one-time

inspection of the propeller de-ice

system to verify the proper functioning

of the engine indication and crew alert

system (EICAS) for the de-ice system;

and corrective action, if necessary. 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 failure of the EICAS

to provide a warning to the flightcrew

in the event of failure of the propeller

de-ice system, which could result in

damage to the airplane and consequent

loss of controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

112–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

FAIRCHILD DORNIER, DORNIER

Luftfahrt GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D–

82230 Wessling, Germany. 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.

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–112–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–112–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

Germany, notified the FAA that an

unsafe condition may exist on all

Dornier Model 328–100 series airplanes.

The LBA advises that it has received a

report indicating that the propeller deice system on the airplane failed

without appropriate indication of the

failure to the flightcrew via the engine

indication and crew alert system

(EICAS). The failure of this system

resulted in the accumulation of ice on

both airplane propellers; the ice

subsequently shed, which damaged the

fuselage and other parts of the exterior

of the airplane. Further investigation of

the incident did not reveal an exact

cause; although the LBA advises that

this is considered to be an isolated

incident, they consider a one-time fleetwide inspection to be warranted. Such

failure of the EICAS to provide a

warning to the flightcrew in the event of

failure of the propeller de-ice system, if

not corrected, could result in damage to

the airplane and consequent loss of

controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Dornier

Alert Service Bulletin ASB–328–30–

013, Revision 1, dated February 21,

1997, which describes procedures for a

one-time inspection of the propeller deice system, to verify that the EICAS

provides appropriate warning to the

flightcrew during operation of the

propeller de-ice system in the event of

failure. The LBA classified this alert

service bulletin as mandatory and

issued German airworthiness directive

97–066, dated March 13, 1997, in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in Germany.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Germany 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,

the LBA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the LBA,

reviewed all available information, 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 alert service bulletin described

previously, except as discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Alert Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

the alert service bulletin does not

specify corrective action if the

inspection results do not verify proper

functioning of the EICAS for the