30152 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules

RESTATEMENT OF ACTIONS REQUIRED

BY AD 96–08–07, AMENDMENT 39–9573

(a) Within 10 days after May 23, 1996 (the

effective date of AD 96–08–07, amendment

39–9573), revise the Limitations Section of

the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to include the information contained

in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as

applicable. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. The

AFM limitation required by AD 94–21–07,

amendment 39–9049, may be removed

following accomplishment of the

requirements of this paragraph.

(1) For airplanes on which the flight

control computers (FCC) have not been

modified in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD:

‘‘Overriding the autopilot (AP) in pitch

axis does not cancel the AP autotrim when

LAND TRACK mode [green LAND on both

Flight Mode Annunciators (FMA)] or GOAROUND mode is engaged. In these modes,

if the pilot counteracts the AP, the autotrim

will trim against pilot input. This could lead

to a severe out-of-trim situation in a critical

phase of flight.’’

(2) For airplanes on which the FCC’s have

been modified in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD:

‘‘Overriding the autopilot (AP) in pitch

axis does not cancel the AP autotrim when

LAND TRACK mode (green LAND on both

FMA’s) is engaged, or GO-AROUND mode is

engaged below 400 feet radio altitude (RA).

In these modes, if the pilot counteracts the

AP, the autotrim will trim against pilot input.

This could lead to a severe out-of-trim

situation in a critical phase of flight.’’

RESTATEMENT OF ACTIONS REQUIRED

BY AD 94–21–07, AMENDMENT 39–9049

(b) For airplanes equipped with FCC’s

having either part number (P/N) B470ABM1

(for Model A310 series airplanes) or

B470AAM1 (for Model A300–600 series

airplanes): Within 60 days after November 2,

1994 (the effective date of AD 94–21–07,

amendment 39–9049), modify the FCC’s in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–22–2036, dated December 14, 1993 (for

Model A310 series airplanes), or Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–22–6021, Revision 1,

dated December 24, 1993 (for Model A300–

600 series airplanes), as applicable.

(c) As of November 2, 1994, no person

shall install a FCC having either P/N

B470ABM1 or B470AAM1 on any airplane.

RESTATEMENT OF ACTIONS REQUIRED

BY AD 97–18–09, AMENDMENT 39–10119

(d) For airplanes on which Modification

No. 11454 [reference Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–22–2044, Revision 1 (for Model A310

series airplanes) or Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–22–6032, Revision 1 (for Model A300–

600 series airplanes)] has not been installed:

Accomplish paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2)(i), and

(d)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(1) Within 24 months after October 3, 1997

(the effective date of AD 97–18–09,

amendment 39–10119), modify the autopilot

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–22–2044, Revision 1, dated January 8,

1997 (for Model A310 series airplanes), or

Service Bulletin A300–22–6032, Revision 1,

dated January 8, 1997 (for Model A300–600

series airplanes), as applicable. The

requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 95–25–

09, amendment 39–9455, if applicable, must

be accomplished prior to or at the same time

the requirements of this paragraph are

accomplished.

(2) Prior to further flight following

accomplishment of paragraph (d)(1) of this

AD:

(i) Remove the AFM revisions required by

paragraph (a) of this AD; and

(ii) Perform an operational test of this

autopilot disconnect feature to determine

that it operates properly, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–22–2047,

dated July 16, 1996 (for Model A310 series

airplanes), or Service Bulletin A300–22–

6035, dated July 16, 1996 (for Model A300–

600 series airplanes), as applicable. If any

discrepancy is detected, prior to further

flight, repair it in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin. Repeat this test

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18

months.

NEW ACTIONS REQUIRED BY THIS AD

(e) For airplanes on which Modification

No. 11454 was installed during production:

Within 18 months after the date of

manufacture of the airplane, or within 6

months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later, accomplish the

actions specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of

this AD.

(f) 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.

(g) 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 97–373–

237(B), dated December 3, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 27,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14610 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–128–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model BAe 146 and Model

Avro 146–RJ 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

British Aerospace Model BAe 146 and

certain Model Avro 146–RJ series

airplanes. This proposal would require

a one-time inspection for ‘‘drill marks’’

and corrosion on the underside of the

wing top skin, 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 prevent corrosion from

developing on the underside of the top

skin of the center wing, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

128–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

AI(R) American Support, Inc., 13850

Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia

20171. 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30153

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–128–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–128–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

all British Aerospace BAe 146 and

certain Model Avro 146–RJ series

airplanes. The CAA advises that, the

manufacturer randomly selected 10

production airplanes for inspection; all

of these airplanes were found to have

‘‘drill marks’’ on the underside of the

wing top skin inside the closed section

stringers, at Rib 0 and Rib 2. The CAA

further advises that the ‘‘drill marks’’

were made during the assembly of the

stringer crown dagger fittings, and can

impair the protective treatment of the

skin, which protects the underside of

the wing from exfoliation corrosion.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in corrosion developing on the

underside of the top skin of the center

wing, and consequent reduced

structural integrity of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued British

Aerospace Service Bulletin SB. 57–50,

Revision 2, dated March 20, 1997,

which describes procedures for

repetitive intrascope inspections of the

underside of the wing top skin inside

the closed section stringers at Rib 0 and

Rib 2 to detect the presence of ‘‘drill

marks’’ and corrosion, and corrective

actions, if necessary. Corrective actions

include degreasing and applying

protective treatment coating, which will

restore the corrosion protection. The

service bulletin indicates that

application of the protective treatment

coating would eliminate the need for

repetitive inspections. Accomplishment

of the actions specified in the service

bulletin is intended to adequately

address the identified unsafe condition.

The CAA classified this service bulletin

as mandatory and issued British

airworthiness directive 004–12–96 in

order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in the

United Kingdom.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in the United Kingdom

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 CAA has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the CAA,

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.

Differences Between the Proposed Rule

and Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

the service bulletin described

previously provides for repetitive

inspections, this proposed AD would

require the application of protective

treatment coating, following a one-time

inspection for ‘‘drill marks’’ and

corrosion. Accomplishment of this

application eliminates the need for the

repetitive inspection. The FAA has

determined that long-term inspections

may not be providing the degree of

safety assurance necessary for the

transport airplane fleet. This, along with

the understanding of the human factors

associated with numerous continual

inspections, has led the FAA to consider

placing less emphasis on inspections

and more emphasis on the corrective

actions. This proposed requirement is in

consonance with these conditions.

Additionally, operators should note

that, although the service bulletin

specifies that the manufacturer be

contacted for disposition of repair if any

corrosion is detected, this proposal

would require repair of any corrosion to

be accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA before

applying protective treatment coating.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 40 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 10 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is $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 $24,000, or

$600 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
30154 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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:

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft

(Formerly British Aerospace Regional

Aircraft Limited, Avro International

Aerospace Division; British Aerospace,

PLC; British Aerospace Commercial

Aircraft Limited): Docket 97–NM–128–

AD.

Applicability: All Model BAe 146 series

airplanes; and Model Avro 146–RJ series

airplanes, as listed in British Aerospace

Service Bulletin SB.57–50, Revision 2, dated

March 20, 1997; 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 corrosion from developing on

the underside of the top skin of the center

wing, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 2 years after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time intrascopic

inspection for ‘‘drill marks’’ and corrosion on

the underside of the wing top skin, in

accordance with British Aerospace Service

Bulletin SB.57–50, Revision 2, dated March

20, 1997.

(1) If no ‘‘drill mark’’ or corrosion is

detected, no further action is required by this

AD.

(2) If any ‘‘drill mark’’ is detected, prior to

further flight, apply protective treatment

coating, in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(3) If any corrosion is detected, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Directorate; and apply protective

treatment coating in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(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. 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.

(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 British airworthiness directive 004–12–96.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 27,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14608 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–52–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Industrie

Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Model

Piaggio P–180 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

(62 FR 48502, September 16, 1997) that

would have applied to certain Industrie

Aeronautiche e Meccaniche (I.A.M.)

Model Piaggio P–180 airplanes. The

proposed action would have required

revising the FAA-approved Airplane

Flight Manual (AFM) to specify

procedures that would prohibit flight in

severe icing conditions (as determined

by certain visual cues), limit or prohibit

the use of various flight control devices

while in severe icing conditions, and

provide the flight crew with recognition

cues for, and procedures for exiting

from, severe icing conditions. During

the comment period of this NPRM, the

FAA was notified that this airplane

model does not have a pneumatic deicing system, therefore, the proposed

action would not apply. With this in

mind, the FAA has determined that the

proposed rule should be withdrawn.

This withdrawal does not prevent the

FAA from initiating future rulemaking

on this subject.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Dow, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, 1201 Walnut, suite

900, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106;

telephone: (816) 426–6934; facsimile

(816) 426–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to This Action

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain I.A.M. Model Piaggio P–

180 airplanes of the same type design

that are registered in the United States

was published in the Federal Register

on September 16, 1997 (62 FR 48502).

The action proposed to require revising

the Limitations Section of the FAAapproved AFM to specify procedures

that would:

• require flight crews to immediately

request priority handling from Air

Traffic Control to exit severe icing

conditions (as determined by certain

visual cues);

• prohibit use of the autopilot when

ice is formed aft of the protected

surfaces of the wing, or when an

unusual lateral trim condition exists;

and

• require that all icing wing

inspection lights be operative prior to

flight into known or forecast icing

conditions at night.

This proposed AD would also require

revising the Normal Procedures Section

of the FAA-approved AFM to specify

procedures that would:

• limit the use of the flaps and

prohibit the use of the autopilot when

ice is observed forming aft of the

protected surfaces of the wing, or if

unusual lateral trim requirements or

autopilot trim warnings are

encountered; and