Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41479

Subpart C—[Reserved]

Subpart D—[Reserved]

Subpart E—Miscellaneous Information

Disclosure Provisions

Sec.

404.70 Asset disposition, program

development, and risk reduction efforts.

Subpart C—[Reserved]

Subpart D—[Reserved]

Subpart E—Miscellaneous Information

Disclosure Provisions

§ 404.70 Asset disposition, program

development, and risk reduction efforts.

(a) Purpose and scope. The purpose of

this section is to provide for disclosure,

only in the context of program

development, asset disposition, debt

collection, and risk reduction efforts, of

confidential commercial or financial

information when such disclosure is

needed to facilitate the Bank’s support

of the export of goods and services. ExIm Bank shall disclose such information

only to persons, as defined in § 404.2,

who require access to such information

to perform their intended services on

behalf of the Bank.

(b) Disclosure of information. Ex-Im

Bank may, in connection with program

development, asset disposition, debt

collection, and risk reduction efforts,

disclose information described in 5

U.S.C. 552(b)(4) that is provided to ExIm Bank in connection with

applications for financial support or

related transactions, when the Ex-Im

Bank President determines that

disclosure is needed to support the

Bank’s promotion of policy and

programmatic objectives and that

disclosure in such limited

circumstances will not subject the

submitter of the information to

commercial harm. Ex-Im Bank does not

waive its right to withhold information,

in response to a FOIA request, that has

been or could be disclosed pursuant to

this section if Ex-Im Bank determines

that such disclosure could subject the

submitter of the information to

commercial harm.

(c) Protections. Whenever possible,

Ex-Im Bank shall enter into

confidentiality agreements intended to

protect the confidentiality of any

commercial or financial information

disclosed pursuant to this section.

Dated: July 30, 1998.

Kenneth W. Hansen,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 98–20802 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–197–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 Series Airplanes

and KC–10 (Military) 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

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

10 series airplanes and KC–10 (military)

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking of the rear spar cap of the

horizontal stabilizer; and repair, if

necessary. The proposed AD also would

require a preventive modification of the

rear spar cap of the horizontal stabilizer,

which would constitute terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

This proposal is prompted by reports of

fatigue cracking of the rear spar cap of

the horizontal stabilizer. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent fatigue cracking of

the rear spar cap of the horizontal

stabilizer, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of the horizontal

stabilizer, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

197–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

The Boeing Company, Douglas Products

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,

Long Beach, California 90846,

Attention: Technical Publications

Business Administration, Dept. C1–L51

(2–60). This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5224; 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 98–NM–197–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–197–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports

indicating that, on several in-service

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series

airplanes, cracking has been discovered

on the vertical leg of the rear spar cap

of the horizontal stabilizer, near the

junction of the operating bulkhead. The

cracking originated in the counterbore

transition area. The affected airplanes

had accumulated more than 46,000 total

flight hours and 19,134 total landings.
41480 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The cause of the cracking has been

attributed to fatigue. Such cracking, if

not corrected, could result in reduced

structural integrity of the horizontal

stabilizer, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC10–55A028, dated April 27,

1998, which describes procedures for

repetitive penetrant inspections or high

frequency eddy current inspections to

detect fatigue cracking of the rear spar

cap of the horizontal stabilizer; and

repair, if necessary. This alert service

bulletin also describes procedures for a

preventive modification of the rear spar

cap of the horizontal stabilizer. The

modification involves the installation of

doublers on the rear spar cap, which

would eliminate the need for the

repetitive inspections. Accomplishment

of the actions specified in the alert

service bulletin is intended to

adequately address the identified unsafe

condition.

Explanation of Requirements of

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 proposed AD would

require repetitive penetrant inspections

or high frequency eddy current

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the rear spar cap of the horizontal

stabilizer; and repair, if necessary. The

proposed AD also would require a

preventive modification of the rear spar

cap of the horizontal stabilizer, which

would constitute terminating action for

the repetitive inspections. The actions

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the alert service

bulletin described previously, except as

discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Alert Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, for

airplanes that have accumulated 18,000

or more total landings, although the

alert service bulletin recommends

accomplishing the penetrant inspection

or high frequency eddy current

inspection within 60 days (after the

release of the alert service bulletin), the

FAA has determined that an interval of

1,500 landings would address the

identified unsafe condition in a timely

manner, and would allow the airplanes

to be inspected during a routine

maintenance period. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

proposed AD, the FAA considered not

only the manufacturer’s

recommendation, but the fail-safe

features of the Model DC–10 series

airplane, the degree of urgency

associated with addressing the subject

unsafe condition, the average utilization

of the affected fleet, and the time

necessary to perform the inspection

(two hours). In light of all of these

factors, the FAA finds a 1,500-landing

compliance time (for airplanes that have

accumulated 18,000 or more total

landings) for the required actions to be

warranted, in that it represents an

appropriate interval of time allowable

for affected airplanes to continue to

operate without compromising safety.

Operators should note that this AD

proposes to mandate, within 5 years

after the effective date of this AD, the

preventive modification described in

the alert service bulletin, as terminating

action for the repetitive inspections. The

alert service bulletin provides for

accomplishment of the preventive

modification as an option only.

The FAA has determined that longterm continued operational safety

would be better assured by design

changes to remove the source of the

problem, rather than by repetitive

inspections. Long-term inspections may

not be providing the degree of safety

assurance necessary for the transport

airplane fleet. This, coupled with a

better 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

design improvements. The proposed

preventive modification requirement is

in consonance with these conditions.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 420

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

242 airplanes of U.S. registry (124

Group 1 airplanes; 118 Group 2

airplanes) would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 2 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed inspections, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

inspections proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators for Groups 1 and 2 airplanes

is estimated to be $29,040, or $120 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

It would take approximately 34 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed modification, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $6,236 per airplane for

Group 1 airplanes, or $6,349 per

airplane for Group 2 airplanes. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

modification proposed by this AD on

U.S. operators of Group 1 airplanes is

estimated to be $1,026,224, or $8,276

per airplane; and, for Group 2 airplanes,

$989,902, or $8,389 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41481

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 98–NM–197–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–10 series

airplanes and KC–10 (military) airplanes, as

listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC10–55A028, dated April 27, 1998;

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 fatigue cracking of the rear spar

cap of the horizontal stabilizer, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of the

horizontal stabilizer, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total

landings, or within 1,500 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform a penetrant inspection or a

high frequency eddy current inspection to

detect fatigue cracking of the rear spar cap of

the horizontal stabilizer, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

DC10–55A028, dated April 27, 1998.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 2,200 landings until accomplishment

of the requirements of paragraph (b) of this

AD.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with the

alert service bulletin. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,200

landings until accomplishment of the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.

(b) Within 5 years after the effective date

of this AD, perform a penetrant inspection or

a high frequency eddy current inspection to

detect fatigue cracking of the rear spar cap of

the horizontal stabilizer, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

DC10–55A028, dated April 27, 1998.

(1) If no cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, perform the preventive

modification of the rear spar cap of the

horizontal stabilizer, in accordance with the

alert service bulletin. Accomplishment of

this modification constitutes terminating

action for the requirements of this AD.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, repair, and perform the

preventive modification of the rear spar cap

of the horizontal stabilizer, in accordance

with the alert service bulletin.

Accomplishment of the modification

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27,

1998.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20678 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–241–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767–200, –300, and –300F 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

certain Boeing Model 767–200, –300,

and –300F series airplanes. This

proposal would require replacement of

the hydraulic reducer fitting in the

return port of the alternate brake

selector valve with a new restrictor

fitting. This proposal is prompted by a

report indicating that a brake housing

had fractured due to high loads

associated with brake vibration during

landing gear retraction, which allowed

the torque rod to swing free. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent failure of the brake

housing in the torque rod region, which

could reduce the braking capability of

the airplane and/or prevent the

extension of a main landing gear by any

method.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

241–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Herron, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2672; 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–241–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.