This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

32624

Vol. 63, No. 114

Monday, June 15, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–325–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747–100, –200, –300, –SP, and

–400F 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

Boeing Model 747–100, –200, –300,

–SP, and –400F series airplanes. Among

other things, this proposal would

require repetitive leak checks of the

lavatory drain system and repair, if

necessary; installation of a cap or flush/

fill line ball valve on the flush/fill line;

would require periodic seal changes;

and replacement of any ‘‘donut’’ type

valves installed in the waste drain

system. This proposal is prompted by

continuing reports of damage to engines

and airframes, separation of engines

from airplanes, and damage to property

on the ground, caused by ‘‘blue ice’’ that

forms from leaking lavatory drain

systems on transport category airplanes

and subsequently dislodges from the

airplane fuselage. The actions specified

by this proposed AD are intended to

prevent damage to engines, airframes,

and property on the ground that is

associated with the problems of ‘‘blue

ice’’ that forms from leaking lavatory

drain systems on transport category

airplanes and subsequently dislodges

from the airplane fuselage.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

325–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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don

Eiford, Aerospace Engineer, Systems

and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S,

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; telephone (425) 227–2788;

fax (425) 227–1181.

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–325–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–325–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Over the past several years, the FAA

has received numerous reports of

leakage from the lavatory service

systems on in-service transport category

airplanes that resulted in the formation

of ‘‘blue ice’’ on the fuselage. In some

instances, the ‘‘blue ice’’ subsequently

dislodged from the fuselage and was

ingested into an engine. In several of

these incidents, the ingestion of blue ice

into an engine resulted in the loss of an

engine fan blade, severe engine damage,

and the inflight shutdown of the engine.

In two cases, the loads created by the

‘‘blue ice’’ being ingested into the

engine resulted in the engine being

physically torn from the airplane.

Damage to an engine, or the separation

of an engine from the airplane, could

result in reduced controllability of the

airplane.

The FAA also has received reports of

at least three incidents of damage to the

airframe of various models of transport

category airplanes that was caused by

foreign objects dislodged from the

forward toilet drain valve and flush/fill

line. One report was of a dent on the

right horizontal stabilizer leading edge

on a Boeing Model 737 series airplane

that was caused by ‘‘blue ice’’ that had

formed from leakage through a flush/fill

line; in this case, the flush/fill cap was

missing from the line at the forward

service panel. Numerous operators have

stated that leakage from the flush/fill

line is a significant source of problems

associated with ‘‘blue ice.’’ Such

damage caused by ‘‘blue ice’’ could

adversely affect the integrity of the

fuselage skin or surface structures.

Additionally, there have been

numerous reports of ‘‘blue ice’’

dislodging from airplanes and striking

houses, cars, buildings, and other

occupied areas on the ground. Although

there have been no reports of any person

being struck by ‘‘blue ice,’’ the FAA

considers that the large number of

reported cases of ‘‘blue ice’’ falling from

lavatory drain systems is sufficient to

support the conclusion that ‘‘blue ice’’

presents an unsafe condition to people

on the ground. Demographic studies

have shown that population density has

increased around airports, and probably

will continue to increase. These are

populations that are at greatest risk of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32625

damage and injury due to ‘‘blue ice’’

dislodging from an airplane during

descent. Without actions to ensure that

leaks from the lavatory drain systems

are detected and corrected in a timely

manner, ‘‘blue ice’’ incidents could go

unchecked and eventually someone may

be struck, perhaps fatally, by falling

‘‘blue ice.’’

Current Rules

On November 9, 1994, the FAA issued

AD 94–23–10, amendment 39–9073 (59

FR 59124, November 16, 1994), which is

applicable to Boeing Model 727 series

airplanes. That AD contains numerous

requirements that are similar to those

proposed in this action, which is

applicable to Model 747 series

airplanes. In fact, several of the

proposed requirements of this action are

based on alternative methods of

compliance that the FAA had approved

previously for compliance with AD 94–

23–10.

The FAA is currently considering

additional rulemaking to address the

problems associated with ‘‘blue ice’’ on

other transport category airplanes.

Discussion of the Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the FAA is proposing this

AD, which would require the following

actions:

Paragraph (a) of the proposed AD

would require periodic replacement of

the valve seals of each lavatory drain

system with new valve seals. This

paragraph also would require repetitive

leak tests of the lavatory dump valve

and drain valve (either service panel or

in-line drain valve). The leak test of

panel valves would be required to be

performed with a minimum of 3 PSID

applied across the valve. If any leak is

discovered during the leak tests,

operators would be required either to

repair the leak and retest it, or drain the

lavatory system and placard it

inoperative until repairs can be made.

In cases where the panel valve has

both an inner seal and an outer cap seal,

in lieu of pressure testing of the outer

cap seal, operators are provided with

the option of performing a visual

inspection for damage or wear of the

outer cap seal and seal surface. Any

damaged parts detected would be

required to be repaired or replaced prior

to further flight, or the lavatory drained

and placarded inoperative until repairs

can be made.

Additionally, the flush/fill line antisiphon valve would be required to be

leak checked. Seals of the anti-siphon

(check) valve, flush/fill line cap, or

flush/fill line ball valve would be

required to be replaced periodically.

Paragraph (b) of the proposed AD

would require that all operators install

a lever/lock cap on the flush/fill lines

for all service panels, or install a flush/

fill ball valve Kaiser Electroprecision

part number series 0062–0009 on the

flush/fill lines for all lavatories.

Paragraph (c) of the proposed AD

would require that, before an operator

places an airplane into service, a

schedule for accomplishment of the leak

tests required by this AD shall be

established. This provision is intended

to ensure that transferred airplanes are

inspected in accordance with the AD on

the same basis as if there were

continuity in ownership, and that

scheduling of the leak tests for each

airplane is not delayed or postponed

due to a transfer of ownership.

Airplanes that have previously been

subject to the AD would have to be

checked in accordance with either the

previous operator’s or the new

operator’s schedule, whichever would

result in the earlier accomplishment

date for that leak test. Other airplanes

would have to be inspected before an

operator could begin operating them or

in accordance with a schedule approved

by the FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector (PMI), but within a period not

to exceed 200 flight hours.

Economic Impact

There are approximately 711 Model

747 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 201 airplanes of U.S.

registry and 89 U.S. operators would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The proposed waste drain system leak

test and outer cap inspection would take

approximately 6 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact on U.S.

operators of the waste drain system leak

test and outer cap inspection is

estimated to be $72,360, or $360 per

airplane, per test/inspection.

Certain airplanes (i.e., those that have

‘‘donut’’ type drain valves installed)

may be required to be leak tested as

many as 15 times each year. Certain

other airplanes having other valve

configurations would be required to be

leak tested as few as 1 time each year.

Based on these figures, the annual

(recurring) cost impact of the required

repetitive leak tests on U.S. operators is

estimated to be between $360 and

$5,400 per airplane per year.

With regard to replacement of

‘‘donut’’ type drain valves, the cost of a

new valve is approximately $1,200.

However, the number of leak tests for an

airplane that is flown an average of

3,000 flight hours a year is thereby

reduced from 15 tests to 3 tests. The cost

reduction because of the number of tests

required is approximately equal to the

cost of the replacement valve. Therefore,

no additional cost would be incurred.

The FAA estimates that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

lavatory drain to accomplish a visual

inspection of the service panel drain

valve cap/door seal and seal mating

surfaces, at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. As with leak tests,

certain airplanes would be required to

be visually inspected as many as 15

times or as few as 3 times each year.

Based on these figures, the annual

(recurring) cost impact of the required

repetitive visual inspections on U.S.

operators is estimated to be between

$180 and $900 per airplane per year.

The proposed installation of the

flush/fill line cap would take

approximately 1 work hour per cap to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts would be $275 per cap. There are

an average of 4 caps per airplane. Based

on these figures, the cost impact on U.S.

operators of these proposed

requirements of this AD is estimated to

be $269,340, or $1,340 per airplane, per

replacement cycle.

The seal replacements of the drain

valves required by paragraph (a) of this

AD would require approximately 2 work

hours to accomplish, at an average labor

cost of $60 per hour. The cost of

required parts would be $200 per each

seal change. Based on these figures, the

cost impact on U.S. operators of these

proposed requirements of this AD is

estimated to be $64,320, or

approximately $320 per airplane per

replacement.

The number of required work hours,

as indicated above, is presented as if the

accomplishment of the actions proposed

in this AD were to be conducted as

‘‘stand alone’’ actions. However, in

actual practice, these actions could be

accomplished coincidentally or in

combination with normally scheduled

airplane inspections and other

maintenance program tasks. Therefore,

the actual number of necessary

‘‘additional’’ work hours would be

minimal in many instances.

Additionally, any costs associated with

special airplane scheduling should be

minimal.

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.
32626 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, prudent

operators would accomplish the

required actions even if they were not

required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this proposed

AD. As a matter of law, in order to be

airworthy, an aircraft must conform to

its type design and be in a condition for

safe operation. The type design is

approved only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

proposed AD, makes a finding of an

unsafe condition, this means that the

original cost-beneficial level of safety is

no longer being achieved and that the

required actions are necessary to restore

that level of safety. Because this level of

safety has already been determined to be

cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit

analysis for this proposed AD would be

redundant and unnecessary.

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:

Boeing: Docket 97–NM–325–AD.

Applicability: All Model 747–100, –200,

–300, –SP, and –400F 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 (d) 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 engine damage, airframe

damage, and/or hazard to persons or property

on the ground as a result of ‘‘blue ice’’ that

has formed from leakage of the lavatory drain

system or flush/fill systems and dislodged

from the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Accomplish the applicable

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through

(a)(9) of this AD at the time specified in each

paragraph. If the waste drain system

incorporates more than one type of valve,

only one of the waste drain system leak test

procedures (the one that applies to the

equipment with the longest leak test interval)

must be conducted at each service panel

location. The waste drain system valve leak

tests specified in this AD shall be performed

in accordance with the following

requirements: Fluid shall completely cover

the upstream end of the valve being tested;

the direction of the 3 pounds per square inch

differential pressure (PSID) shall be applied

across the valve in the same direction as

occurs in flight; the other waste drain system

valves shall be open; and the minimum time

to maintain the differential pressure shall be

5 minutes. Any revision of the seal change

intervals or leak test intervals must be

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate.

(1) Replace the valve seals with new valve

seals in accordance with the applicable

schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i),

(a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(i) For each lavatory drain system that has

an in-line drain valve installed, Kaiser

Electroprecision part number series 2651–

278 or 2651–357: Replace the seals within

5,000 flight hours after the effective date of

this AD, or within 48 months after the last

documented seal change, whichever occurs

later. Thereafter, repeat the replacement of

the seals at intervals not to exceed 48

months.

(ii) For each lavatory drain system that has

a Pneudraulics part number series 9527

valve: Replace the seals within 5,000 flight

hours after the effective date of this AD, or

within 18 months of the last documented seal

change, whichever occurs later. Thereafter,

repeat the replacement of the seals at

intervals not to exceed 18 months or 6,000

flight hours, whichever occurs later.

(iii) For each lavatory drain system that has

any other type of drain valve: Replace the

seals within 5,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, or within 18 months

after the last documented seal change,

whichever occurs later. Thereafter, repeat the

replacement of the seals at intervals not to

exceed 18 months.

(2) For each lavatory drain system that has

an in-line drain valve installed, Kaiser

Electroprecision part number series 2651–

278: Within 4,500 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight hours,

accomplish the procedures specified in

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD:

(i) Conduct a leak test of the toilet tank

dump valve (in-tank valve that is spring

loaded closed and operable by a T-handle at

the service panel) and the in-line drain valve.

The toilet tank dump valve leak test must be

performed by filling the toilet tank with a

minimum of 10 gallons of water/rinsing fluid

and testing for leakage after a period of 5

minutes. Take precautions to avoid

overfilling the tank and spilling fluid into the

airplane. The in-line drain valve leak test

must be performed with a minimum of 3

PSID applied across the valve.

(ii) If a service panel valve or cap is

installed, perform a visual inspection of the

service panel drain valve outer cap/door seal

and the inner seal (if the valve has an inner

door with a second positive seal), and the

seal mating surfaces for wear or damage that

may allow leakage.

(3) For each lavatory drain system that has

a service panel drain valve installed,

Pneudraulics part number series 9527:

Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective

date of this AD, accomplish the requirements

of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this

AD. Thereafter, repeat the leak tests at

intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32627

(i) Conduct leak tests of the toilet tank

dump valve and service panel drain valve.

The toilet tank dump valve leak test must be

performed by filling the toilet tank with a

minimum of 10 gallons of water/rinsing fluid

and testing for leakage after a period of 5

minutes. Take precautions to avoid

overfilling the tank and spilling fluid into the

airplane. The leak test of the service panel

drain valve must be performed with a

minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve

inner door/closure device.

(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the outer

cap/door and seal mating surface for wear or

damage that may cause leakage.

(4) For each lavatory drain system that has

a service panel drain valve installed, Kaiser

Electroprecision part number series 0218–

0032 or 2651–357 or Shaw Aero part

number/serial number as listed in Table 1 of

this AD: Within 1,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours,

accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this AD:

TABLE 1.—SHAW AERO VALVES APPROVED FOR 1,000 FLIGHT HOUR LEAK TEST INTERVAL

Shaw waste drain valve part number Serial numbers of part number valve approved for 1,000-hour leak test interval

331 Series, 332 Series ......................... All.

10101000B–A ....................................... None.

10101000B–A–1 ................................... 0207–0212, 0219, 0226 and higher.

10101000BA2 ....................................... 0130 and higher.

10101000C–A ....................................... None.

10101000C–A–1 ................................... 0277 and higher.

10101000CN OR C–N .......................... 3649 and higher.

Certain 10101000B valves ................... Any of these ‘‘B’’ series valves that incorporate the improvements of Shaw Service Bulletin

10101000B–38–1, dated October 7, 1994, and are marked ‘‘SBB38–1–58.’’

Certain 10101000C valves ................... Any of these ‘‘C’’ series valves that incorporate the improvements of Shaw Service Bulletin

10101000C–38–2 dated October 7, 1994, and are marked ‘‘SBC38–2–58.’’

Note 2: Table 1 is a comprehensive list of

all approved Shaw valves, including those

valves approved by Parts Manufacturer

Approval (PMA) or Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) for installation on Boeing

Model 747 series airplanes.

(i) Conduct a leak test of the toilet tank

dump valve and service panel drain valve.

The toilet tank dump valve leak test must be

performed by filling the toilet tank with a

minimum of 10 gallons of water/rinsing fluid

and testing for leakage after a period of 5

minutes. Take precautions to avoid

overfilling the tank and spilling fluid into the

airplane. The service panel drain valve leak

test must be performed with a minimum of

3 PSID applied across the valve inner door/

closure device.

(ii) For each valve, except for Kaiser

Electroprecision valve part number series

2651–357, perform a visual inspection of the

outer cap/door and seal mating surface for

wear or damage that may cause leakage.

(5) For each lavatory drain system that has

a service panel drain valve installed, Kaiser

Electroprecision part number series 0218–

0026; or Shaw Aero Devices part number

series 10101000B or 10101000C [except as

specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this AD]:

Within 600 flight hours after the effective

date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not

to exceed 600 flight hours, accomplish the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and

(a)(5)(ii) of this AD:

(i) Conduct a leak test of the dump valve

and the service panel drain valve. The leak

test of the dump valve must be performed by

filling the toilet tank with a minimum of 10

gallons of water/rinsing fluid and testing for

leakage after a period of 5 minutes. Take

precautions to avoid overfilling the tank and

spilling fluid on the airplane. The service

panel drain valve leak test must be performed

with a minimum 3 PSID applied across the

valve inner door/closure device.

(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the outer

cap/door and seal mating surface for wear or

damage that may cause leakage.

(6) For each lavatory drain system with a

lavatory drain system valve that incorporates

either ‘‘donut’’ plug, Kaiser Electroprecision

part number 4259–20 or 4259–31; Kaiser

Roylyn/Kaiser Electroprecision cap/flange

part numbers 2651–194C, 2651–197C, 2651–

216, 2651–219, 2651–235, 2651–256, 2651–

258, 2651–259, 2651–260, 2651–275, 2651–

282, 2651–286; Shaw Aero Devices assembly

part number 0008–100; or other FAAapproved equivalent parts; accomplish the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(6)(i), (a)(6)(ii),

and (a)(6)(iii) of this AD at the times

specified in those paragraphs. For the

purposes of this paragraph [(a)(6)], ‘‘FAAapproved equivalent part’’ means either a

‘‘donut’’ plug which mates with the cap/

flange part numbers listed above, or a cap/

flange which mates with the ‘‘donut’’ plug

part numbers listed above, such that the cap/

flange and ‘‘donut’’ plug are used together as

an assembled valve.

(i) Within 200 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours,

conduct leak tests of the toilet tank dump

valve and the service panel drain valve. The

leak test of the toilet tank dump valve must

be performed by filling the toilet tank with

a minimum of 10 gallons of water/rinsing

fluid and testing for leakage after a period of

5 minutes. Take precautions to avoid

overfilling the tank and spilling fluid on the

airplane. The service panel drain valve leak

test must be performed with a minimum 3

PSID applied across the valve.

(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the outer

door/cap and seal mating surface for wear or

damage that may cause leakage. This

inspection shall be accomplished in

conjunction with the leak tests of paragraph

(a)(6)(i).

(iii) Within 5,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, replace the donut

valve [part numbers per paragraph (a)(6) of

this AD] with another type of FAA-approved

valve. Following installation of the

replacement valve, perform the appropriate

leak tests and seal replacements at the

intervals specified for that replacement valve,

as applicable.

(7) For each lavatory drain system not

addressed in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4),

(a)(5), and (a)(6) of this AD: Within 200 flight

hours after the effective date of this AD, and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight

hours, accomplish the requirements of

paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (a)(7)(ii) of this AD:

(i) Conduct a leak test of the toilet tank

dump valve and the service panel drain

valve. The toilet tank dump valve leak test

must be performed by filling the toilet tank

with a minimum of 10 gallons of water/

rinsing fluid and testing for leakage after a

period of 5 minutes. Take precautions to

avoid overfilling the tank and spilling fluid

on the airplane. The service panel drain

valve leak test must be performed with a

minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve

inner door/closure device.

(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the outer

cap/door and seal mating surface for wear or

damage that may cause leakage.

(8) For flush/fill lines: Within 5,000 flight

hours after the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the requirements of paragraph

(a)(8)(i) or (a)(8)(ii), as applicable; and

paragraph (a)(8)(iii) of this AD. Thereafter,

repeat the requirements at intervals not to

exceed 5,000 flight hours, or 48 months after

the last documented seal change, whichever

occurs later.

(i) If a lever lock cap is installed on the

flush/fill line of the subject lavatory, replace

the seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon

(check) valve and the flush/fill line cap.

(ii) If a flush/fill ball valve, Kaiser

Electroprecision part number series 0062–

0009, is installed on the flush/fill line of the

subject lavatory, replace the seals in the

flush/fill ball valve and the toilet tank antisiphon valve.

(iii) Leak test the toilet tank anti-siphon

valve by filling the toilet tank with water/

rinsing fluid to a level such that the bowl is

approximately half full (at least 2 inches

above the flapper in the bowl.) Apply 3 PSID

across the valve in the same direction as
32628 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

occurs in flight. If there is a cap/valve at the

flush/fill line port, the cap/valve must be

removed/open during the test. Check for

leakage at the flush/fill line port for a period

of 5 minutes.

(9) As a result of the leak tests and

inspections required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, or if evidence of leakage is found at any

other time, accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (a)(9)(i), (a)(9)(ii), or (a)(9)(iii), as

applicable.

(i) If a leak is discovered, prior to further

flight, repair the leak. Prior to further flight

after repair, perform the appropriate leak test,

as applicable. Additionally, prior to returning

the airplane to service, clean the surfaces

adjacent to where the leakage occurred to

clear them of any horizontal fluid residue

streaks; such cleaning must be to the extent

that any future appearance of a horizontal

fluid residue streak will be taken to mean

that the system is leaking again.

Note 3: For purposes of this AD, ‘‘leakage’’

is defined as any visible leakage, if observed

during a leak test. At any other time (than

during a leak test), ‘‘leakage’’ is defined as

the presence of ice in the service panel, or

horizontal fluid residue streaks/ice trails

originating at the service panel. The fluid

residue is usually, but not necessarily, blue

in color.

(ii) If any worn or damaged seal is found,

or if any damaged seal mating surface is

found, prior to further flight, repair or replace

it in accordance with the valve

manufacturer’s maintenance manual.

(iii) In lieu of performing the requirements

of paragraph (a)(9)(i) or (a)(9)(ii): Prior to

further fight, drain the affected lavatory

system and placard the lavatory inoperative

until repairs can be accomplished.

(b) For all airplanes: Unless accomplished

previously, within 5,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform the actions

specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this

AD:

(1) Install an FAA-approved lever/lock cap

on the flush/fill lines for all lavatories. Or

(2) Install a flush/fill ball valve Kaiser

Electroprecision part number series 0062–

0009 on the flush/fill lines for all lavatories.

(c) For any affected airplane acquired after

the effective date of this AD: Before any

operator places into service any airplane

subject to the requirements of this AD, a

schedule for the accomplishment of the leak

tests required by this AD shall be established

in accordance with either paragraph (c)(1) or

(c)(2) of this AD, as applicable. After each

leak test has been performed once, each

subsequent leak test must be performed in

accordance with the new operator’s schedule,

in accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes that have been maintained

previously in accordance with this AD, the

first leak test to be performed by the new

operator must be accomplished in

accordance with the previous operator’s

schedule or with the new operator’s

schedule, whichever results in the earlier

accomplishment date for that leak test.

(2) For airplanes that have not been

maintained previously in accordance with

this AD, the first leak test to be performed by

the new operator must be accomplished prior

to further flight, or in accordance with a

schedule approved by the FAA Prinicipal

Maintenance Inspector (PMI), but within a

period not to exceed 200 flight hours.

(d) Alternative method(s) of compliance

with this AD: 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, Seattle ACO. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA PMI, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(e) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15783 Filed 6–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34–40077, International Series

Release No. 1139, File No. S7–15–98]

RIN 3235–AH46

Exemption of the Securities of the

Kingdom of Belgium Under the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for

Purposes of Trading Futures Contracts

on Those Securities

AGENCY:Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION:Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:The Commission proposes for

comment an amendment to Rule 3a12–

8 (‘‘Rule’’) that would designate debt

obligations issued by the Kingdom of

Belgium (‘‘Belgium’’) as ‘‘exempted

securities’’ for the purpose of marketing

and trading of futures contracts on those

securities in the United States. The

amendment is intended to permit

futures trading on the sovereign debt of

Belgium.

DATES:Comments should be submitted

by July 15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

submitted in triplicate and addressed to

Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.

Comments also may be submitted

electronically at the following E-mail

address: rule-comments@sec.gov. All

comments should refer to File No. S7–

15–98; this file number should be

included on the subject line if e-mail is

used. Comment letters will be available

for public inspection and copying at the

Commission’s Public Reference Room,

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549. Electronically submitted

comment letters will also be posted on

the Commission’s Internet web site

(http://www.sec.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua Kans, Attorney, Office of Market

Supervision (‘‘OMS’’), Division of

Market Regulation (’’Division’’),

Securities and Exchange Commission

(Mail Stop 10–1), 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549, at 202/942–

0079.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Under the Commodity Exchange Act

(‘‘CEA’’), it is unlawful to trade a futures

contract on any individual security

unless the security in question is an

exempted security (other than a

municipal security) under the Securities

Act of 1933 (‘‘Securities Act’’) or the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Exchange Act’’). Debt obligations of

foreign governments are not exempted

securities under either of these statutes.

The Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’),

however, has adopted Rule 3a12–8 (17

CFR 240.3a12–8) (‘‘Rule’’) under the

Exchange Act to designate debt

obligations issued by certain foreign

governments as exempted securities

under the Exchange Act solely for the

purpose of marketing and trading

futures contracts on those securities in

the United States. As amended, the

foreign governments currently

designated in the Rule are Great Britain,

Canada, Japan, Australia, France, New

Zealand, Austria, Denmark, Finland, the

Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, the

Republic of Ireland, Italy, Spain,

Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and

Venezuela (the ‘‘Designated Foreign

Governments’’). As a result, futures

contracts on the debt obligations of

these countries may be sold in the

United States, as long as the other terms

of the Rule are satisfied.

The Commission today is soliciting

comments on a proposal to amend Rule

3a12–8 to add the debt obligations of the

Kingdom of Belgium (‘‘Belgium’’) to the

list of Designated Foreign Governments

whose debt obligations are exempted by

Rule 3a12–8. To qualify for the

exemption, futures contracts on the debt

obligations of Belgium would have to