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

27704

Vol. 60, No. 101

Thursday, May 25, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–38–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker

Model F28 Mark 0100 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 Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100

series airplanes. This proposal would

require replacement of the return filter

diaphragm assemblies on hydraulic

systems 1 and 2 with modified filter

units having new diaphragms. This

proposal is prompted by a report of

insufficient running clearance of the

brake units due to overpressure in the

hydraulic return system; this condition

could lead to brake overheating. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent overpressure of

the hydraulic return system, which

could result in reduced braking

performance and/or blown tires due to

brake overheating.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

38–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

Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North

Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia

22314. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2141; fax (206) 227–1320.

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 95–NM–38–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

95–NM–38–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the Netherlands, recently notified the

FAA that an unsafe condition may exist

on certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100

series airplanes. The RLD advises that it

received a report of insufficient running

clearance of the brake units on a Fokker

Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplane

due to overpressure in the hydraulic

return system. Results of an

investigation revealed that the outlet

check valve of a return filter diaphragm

assembly of the hydraulic system was

blocked. The probable cause of this

blockage was determined to be incorrect

manufacturing tolerances, which

resulted in extrusion of the lower seal

at the inner diameter during

installation. The RLD received

additional reports concerning the

possibility of a hydraulic lock between

the diaphragm and the check valve of

the filter inlet port. This hydraulic lock

could lead to incorrect installation of

the filter bowl and element.

These conditions, if not corrected,

could result in overpressure of the

hydraulic return system, which may

result in reduced braking performance

and/or blown tires due to brake

overheating.

Fokker has issued Service Bulletin

SBF100–29–025, dated December 31,

1993, which describes procedures for

replacement of the return filter

diaphragm assemblies on hydraulic

systems 1 and 2 with modified filter

units having new diaphragms.

Installation of these modified units will

ensure that the outlet check valve of the

return filter diaphragm assembly is not

blocked, and will eliminate the

possibility of a hydraulic lock between

the diaphragm and the check valve of

the filter inlet port. The RLD classified

this service bulletin as mandatory and

issued Netherlands airworthiness

directive 94–024 (A), dated January 28,

1994, in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in the

Netherlands.

This airplane model is manufactured

in the Netherlands 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 RLD has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the RLD,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27705

certificated for operation in the United

States.

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

replacement of the return filter

diaphragm assemblies on hydraulic

systems 1 and 2 with modified filter

units having new diaphragms. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

The FAA estimates that 119 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would be provided by the parts

manufacturer at no cost to operators.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $14,280, or

$120 per airplane.

The total 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.

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Fokker: Docket 95–NM–38–AD.

Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series

airplanes equipped with Aircraft Porous

Media Europe (APME) Limited hydraulic

return filter assemblies having part numbers

(P/N) QA07236 and QA07237, all serial

numbers; 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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent overpressure in the hydraulic

return system, which could result in reduced

braking performance and/or blown tires due

to brake overheating, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, replace the return filters, P/N’s

QA07236 and QA07237, on hydraulic

systems 1 and 2, respectively, with modified

return filter units, in accordance with Fokker

Service Bulletin SBF100–29–025, dated

December 31, 1993.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane a return

filter unit, P/N QA07236 or QA07237, on

hydraulic system 1 or 2, respectively, unless

that unit has been modified in accordance

with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–29–

025, dated December 31, 1993.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 May 19,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12827 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–162–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Beech Model

400, 400A, and MU–300–10 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 Beech Model 400, 400A, and

MU–300–10 airplanes. This proposal

would require installation of an

improved adjustment mechanism on the

flightcrew seats and replacement of the

existing aluminum seat reinforcement

assemblies with steel assemblies. This