26112 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Proposed Rules

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of Section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC,

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 AOT described previously.

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action until final action is identified, at

which time the FAA may consider

further rulemaking.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 120 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed inspection,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the inspection proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $7,200, 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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 98–NM–93–AD.

Applicability: All Model A319, A320, and

A321 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 detect and correct a rotated, damaged,

or missing lock bolt, which could result in

disengagement of the pintle pin from the

bearing, and consequent collapse of the main

landing gear (MLG) during landing,

accomplish the following:

(a) Perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect discrepancies (rotation, damage, and

absence) of the lock bolt for the pintle pin on

the MLG, in accordance with Airbus All

Operator Telex (AOT) 32–17, Revision 01,

dated November 6, 1997, at the latest of the

times specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),

and (a)(3), of this AD. If any discrepancy is

detected, prior to further flight, perform

corrective actions, as applicable, in

accordance with the AOT. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 1,000 flight cycles or 15 months,

whichever occurs first.

(1) Within 30 months since the airplane’s

date of manufacture or prior to the

accumulation of 2,000 total flight cycles,

whichever occurs first.

(2) Within 15 months or 1,000 flight cycles

after the last gear replacement or

accomplishment of Airbus Industrie Service

Bulletin A320–32–1119, dated June 13, 1994,

whichever occurs first.

(3) Within 500 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD.

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their request 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.

(c) 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 French airworthiness directive 97–385–

112(B), dated December 17, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 5,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12511 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–123–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier

Model 328–100 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26113

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Dornier Model 328–100 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

a one-time visual inspection to detect

cracking in the axle adapter of the shock

absorber of the nose landing gear (NLG),

and corrective actions, 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 correct cracking in the axle

adapter of the shock absorber of the

NLG, which could result in failure of

the NLG and consequent damage to the

airplane structure.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

123–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–123–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–123–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 certain

Dornier Model 328–100 series airplanes.

The LBA advises that an operator

reported finding a crack in the axle

adapter of the shock absorber in the

nose landing gear (NLG) during a

maintenance check. Investigation

revealed that, in certain areas of the

crack, there was a presence of

dichromate, an orange-red chemical

used in material processing for the

purposes of resisting corrosion. This

presence of dichromate indicates that at

least part of the crack was present

during the manufacturing cycle of the

component. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in cracks in the

axle adapter of the shock absorber of the

NLG, which could cause failure of the

NLG and consequent damage to the

airplane structure.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Dornier

Service Bulletin SB–328–32–213, dated

April 16, 1997, which describes

procedures for a one-time visual

inspection to detect cracking in the axle

adapter of the shock absorber of the

NLG, and corrective actions, if

necessary. The corrective actions

involve removal and replacement of the

NLG shock absorber with a new or

serviceable shock absorber if any

cracking is detected in the axle adapter.

The LBA classified this service bulletin

as mandatory and issued German

airworthiness directive 97–142, dated

May 22, 1997, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Germany.

The Dornier service bulletin

references Messier-Dowty Service

Bulletin 800–32–027, dated May 7,

1997, as an additional source of service

information to accomplish the

inspection.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Germany and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of Section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the 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 actions specified in

the Dornier service bulletin described

previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 50 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed inspection,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the inspection proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $3,000, 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
26114 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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:

Dornier Luftfahrt GMBH: Docket 98–NM–

123–AD.

Applicability: Model 328–100 series

airplanes, equipped with nose landing gear

(NLG) having serial below IL113; 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 correct cracking in the axle adapter of

the shock absorber of the NLG, which could

cause failure of the NLG and consequent

damage to the airplane structure, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 300 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform a one-time

visual inspection to detect cracking in the

axle adapter of the NLG shock absorber, in

accordance with Dornier Service Bulletin

SB–328–32–213, dated April 16, 1997.

(1) If no cracking is detected, no further

action is required by this AD.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, remove the NLG shock

absorber and replace with a new or

serviceable part, in accordance with the

service bulletin.

Note 2: Dornier Service Bulletin SB–328–

32–213, dated April 16, 1997, references

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 800–32–027,

dated May 7, 1997, as an additional source

of service information to accomplish the

inspection, removal, and repair.

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their request 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.

(c) 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 German airworthiness directive 97–142,

dated May 22, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 5,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12510 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 34 and 35

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Concept Release.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) has been engaged in a

comprehensive regulatory reform effort

designed to update the agency’s

oversight of both exchange and offexchange markets. As part of this reform

effort, the Commission is reexamining

its approach to the over-the-counter

(‘‘OTC’’) derivatives market.

OTC derivatives are contracts

executed outside of the regulated

exchange environment whose value

depends on (or derives from) the value

of an underlying asset, reference rate, or

index. They are used by market

participants to perform a wide variety of

important risk management functions.

The CFTC’s last major regulatory actions

involving OTC derivatives were

regulatory exemptions for certain swaps

and hybrid instruments adopted in

January 1993. Since that time, the OTC

derivatives market has grown

dramatically in both volume and variety

of products offered and has attracted

many new end-users of varying degrees

of sophistication. The market has also

changed, with new products being

developed, with some products

becoming more standardized, and with

systems for central execution or clearing

being studied or proposed.

The Commission hopes that the

public comments filed in response to

this release will constitute an important

source of relevant data and analysis that

will assist it in determining whether its

current regulatory approach continues

to be appropriate or requires

modification. The Commission wishes

to maintain adequate safeguards without

impairing the ability of the OTC

derivatives market to continue to grow

and the ability of U.S. entities to remain

competitive in the global financial

marketplace. The Commission has

identified a broad range of issues and

potential approaches in order to

generate detailed analysis from

commenters. The Commission urges

commenters to analyze the benefits and

burdens of any potential regulatory

modifications in light of current market

realities. The Commission has no

preconceived result in mind. The

Commission is open both to evidence in

support of easing current restrictions

and evidence indicating a need for

additional safeguards. The Commission

also welcomes comment on the extent to

which certain matters are being or can

be adequately addressed through selfregulation, either alone or in

conjunction with some level of

government oversight, or through the

regulatory efforts of other government

agencies.

New regulatory restrictions ultimately

adopted, if any, will be adopted only

after publication for additional public

comment and will be applied

prospectively only. This release in no