Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22479

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 20 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 7 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

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $8,400, or $420 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 proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect 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,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 2000–NM–374–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300 B2–1C, B2–

203, B2K–3C, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203

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 (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 the possibility of electrical

arcing to the fuel tank if the airplane should

be struck by lightning, accomplish the

following:

Inspection

(a) Within 4,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, inspect the

clearance space from each fuel quantity

indication (FQI) probe to any adjacent

structure or metallic component, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–28–0080, dated September 28, 2000.

Clearance Adjustment

(b) If, during the inspection mandated in

paragraph (a) of this AD, the clearance

between any probe and its adjacent parts, as

described in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

28–0080, dated September 28, 2000, is less

than 3.0 mm (0.118 in.), prior to further

flight, adjust the position of the FQI probe in

accordance with paragraph 3.C. of the service

bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport

Airplane Directorate, FAA. 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.

Special Flight Permits

(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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 2000–455–

322(B), dated November 15, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11228 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–220–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker

Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and

4000 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

22480 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document revises an

earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD), applicable to certain Fokker

Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and

4000 series airplanes. The proposed AD

would have required an eddy current

inspection to detect cracks in the upper

girder of the two main landing gear

(MLG) brackets; and repair of a cracked

bracket followed by repetitive

inspections, or replacement of a cracked

MLG bracket with an improved bracket,

as applicable. The proposed AD also

provided for an optional terminating

action for certain proposed

requirements. That proposal was

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

This new action revises the proposed

rule by adding new repetitive

inspections for certain airplanes, and

extending the repetitive interval for the

repetitive inspections for other

airplanes. The actions specified by this

new proposed AD are intended to detect

and correct cracks in the upper girder of

the MLG bracket, which could progress

into the vertical stiffeners of the MLG

bracket and result in reduced structural

integrity of the landing gear.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

220–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. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9–

anm–nprmcomment@faa.gov.

Comments sent via fax or the Internet

must contain ‘‘Docket No. 99–NM–220–

AD’’ in the subject line and need not be

submitted in triplicate. Comments sent

via the Internet as attached electronic

files must be formatted in Microsoft

Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231,

2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the

Netherlands. 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,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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 action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 99–NM–220–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.

99–NM–220–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to add an airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Fokker Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000,

3000, and 4000 series airplanes, was

published as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on November 15, 1999 (64 FR

61796). That NPRM would have

required an eddy current inspection to

detect cracks in the upper girder of the

two main landing gear (MLG) brackets;

and repair of a cracked bracket followed

by repetitive inspections, or

replacement of a cracked MLG bracket

with an improved bracket, as applicable.

That NPRM also provided for optional

terminating action for certain

requirements of the proposed AD. That

NPRM was prompted by issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The conditions

described in that NPRM, if not

corrected, could result in cracks in the

upper girder of the MLG bracket, which

could progress into the vertical

stiffeners of the MLG bracket and result

in reduced structural integrity of the

landing gear.

Explanation of New Service

Information

Since the issuance of that NPRM,

Fokker has issued Service Bulletin F28/

57–90, Revision 1, dated August 28,

2000. (The NPRM referenced Fokker

Service Bulletin F28/57–90, dated

March 1, 1999, as the appropriate source

of service information for certain

proposed actions.) Revision 1 of the

service bulletin describes actions

similar to those in the original issue of

the service bulletin, but recommends

new repetitive inspections for airplanes

on which no cracking is detected, and

increases the repetitive inspection

interval from 12 months to 18 months

for airplanes on which cracking is

detected. Revision 1 of the service

bulletin also clarifies the

accomplishment instructions by

providing more detailed instructions for

the eddy current inspections.

The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the Netherlands, classified Service

Bulletin F28/57–90, Revision 1, as

mandatory, and issued Dutch

airworthiness directive 1999–045/2,

dated October 31, 2000, in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in the Netherlands.

Comments

Due consideration has been given to

the comments received in response to

the NPRM. Certain comments have

resulted in changes to the proposed

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22481

rule, and these comments are addressed

below.

Request To Add Repetitive Inspections,

Extend Inspection Interval

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise the repetitive inspection interval,

as proposed in paragraph (a)(2) of the

NPRM, to correspond with the

inspection interval that the airplane

manufacturer intends to incorporate in

the Structural Inspection Program (SIP)

Document. The interval to which the

commenter refers is the 18-month

repetitive inspection interval for both

uncracked and repaired fittings of the

MLG brackets, as provided in Revision

1 of the service bulletin, described

previously. As stated above, the FAA

has revised the proposal in this

supplemental NPRM according to the

changes in Revision 1 of the service

bulletin. No further change to the

proposal is necessary related to this

comment.

Request To Correct a Typographical

Error

A commenter points out that, in the

‘‘Differences Between Proposed Rule,

Foreign Airworthiness Directive, and

Service Bulletin’’ section of the NPRM,

the FAA states that replacement of a

cracked MLG bracket would be required

if a crack exceeds 0.0591 inch (15mm)

in length. The commenter notes that the

referenced crack length should be

‘‘0.591.’’ The FAA acknowledges that

this was a typographical error, and has

ensured that the correct crack length is

stated in the parallel section of this

supplemental NPRM.

Explanation of Change to Cost Impact

Information

In the ‘‘Cost Impact’’ section of the

NPRM, the FAA stated that the

proposed AD would affect six airplanes

of U.S. registry. Since the issuance of

the NPRM, two additional airplanes

subject to this proposed AD have been

added to the U.S. Register. The FAA has

revised the ‘‘Cost Impact’’ section of this

supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Explanation of New Requirements of

Proposal

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, this new proposed AD would

require repetitive eddy current

inspections to detect cracks in the upper

girder of the two MLG brackets; and

repair of a cracked bracket or

replacement of a cracked bracket with

an improved bracket, as applicable.

Such replacement would terminate the

requirements of this proposed AD. For

airplanes on which no cracking is

detected, replacement of an existing

bracket with an improved bracket is

provided as an optional terminating

action for the repetitive inspections. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished according to Fokker

Service Bulletin F28/57–90, Revision 1

(described previously), and Fokker

Proforma Service Bulletin F28/57–92,

dated July 1, 1999 (described in the

original NPRM), except as noted below.

(Operators should note that, although

Fokker Proforma Service Bulletin F28/

57–92 has not been revised since the

original NPRM, a difference between the

proposal and that service bulletin that

was cited in the original NPRM is

restated below for the convenience of

operators.)

Differences Between Supplemental

NPRM, Foreign Airworthiness

Directive, and Service Bulletins

This supplemental NPRM differs from

Fokker Service Bulletin F28/57–90,

Revision 1, and the parallel Dutch

airworthiness directive in that it would

require, prior to further flight,

replacement of a cracked MLG bracket

with an improved bracket, if a crack

exceeds 0.591 inch (15 mm) in length.

The service bulletin and the Dutch

airworthiness directive specify

replacement of a cracked MLG bracket

prior to further flight only if a crack

exceeds 1.576 inches (40 mm) in length.

The FAA has determined that, because

of the safety implications and

consequences associated with such

cracking, any subject MLG bracket that

is found to have a crack that exceeds

0.591 (15 mm) in length must be

replaced prior to further flight.

Operators should note that Fokker

Service Bulletin F28/57–90, Revision 1,

and the Dutch airworthiness directive

specify to replace a cracked MLG

bracket in accordance with Fokker

Proforma Service Bulletin F28/57–92, or

to contact the manufacturer for

replacement instructions. However, this

supplemental NPRM would require

replacement of a cracked MLG bracket

to be accomplished in accordance with

Fokker Proforma Service Bulletin F28/

57–92.

Operators also should note that,

although Fokker Proforma Service

Bulletin F28/57–92, including any

appendix referenced in that proforma

service bulletin, may specify that the

manufacturer may be contacted if any

discrepancies are found during the

replacement of the MLG bracket, this

proposal would require correction of the

discrepancies in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA, or the

RLD (or its delegated agent). In light of

the type of corrective action that would

be required to address the identified

unsafe condition, and in consonance

with existing bilateral airworthiness

agreements, the FAA has determined

that, for this supplemental NPRM,

corrective action approved by either the

FAA or the RLD would be acceptable for

compliance with this proposed AD.

Conclusion

Since the changes described above

expand the scope of the originally

proposed rule, the FAA has determined

that it is necessary to reopen the

comment period to provide additional

opportunity for public comment.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 8 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

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $960, or $120 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 proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect 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,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

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

22482 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / 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:

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket 99–NM–220–

AD.

Applicability: Model F.28 Mark 1000,

2000, 3000, and 4000 series airplanes; serial

numbers 11003 through 11091 inclusive,

11094 through 11171 inclusive, 11991, and

11992; 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 (f) of this AD. The

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the modification, alteration, or repair

on the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been

eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct cracks in the upper

girder of the main landing gear (MLG)

bracket, which could progress into the

vertical stiffeners of the MLG bracket and

result in reduced structural integrity of the

landing gear, accomplish the following:

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective

Actions

(a) Within 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, perform an eddy current

inspection of the upper girder of the MLG

brackets on the left and right sides of the

airplane for cracks, in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker

Service Bulletin F28/57–90, Revision 1,

dated August 28, 2000.

(1) If no cracks are found, repeat the

inspection at least every 18 months, until

accomplishment of paragraph (d) of this AD.

(2) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of

this AD, if any crack is found, prior to further

flight, repair as specified in paragraph C.(1)

of the Accomplishment Instructions of the

service bulletin, in accordance with the

service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the eddy

current inspection at intervals not to exceed

18 months, until accomplishment of

paragraph (d) of this AD.

Note 2: Inspections accomplished before

the effective date of this AD in accordance

with Fokker Service Bulletin F28/57–90,

dated March 1, 1999, are considered

acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a)

of this AD.

Reporting Requirement

(b) Within 10 days after accomplishing

each inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD, submit a report of the inspection

results to: Fokker Services B.V., Technical

Services, Attn: Manager Airline Support, P.O.

Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the

Netherlands. Information collection

requirements contained in this regulation

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

Replacement

(c) For airplanes on which a crack greater

than 0.591 inch (15 mm) in length is found:

Except as provided by paragraph (e) of this

AD, prior to further flight, replace the

cracked MLG bracket with a new, improved

bracket (including measuring the position of

the existing MLG bracket, removing the

existing bracket and attachment fittings,

checking alignment of the fastener holes,

measuring gaps, installing a shim, and

aligning the new bracket); in accordance with

Fokker Proforma Service Bulletin F28/57–92,

dated July 1, 1999. Such replacement

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(a) of this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

(d) Except as provided by paragraph (e) of

this AD, replacement of the MLG bracket

with a new, improved bracket (including

measuring the position of the existing MLG

bracket, removing the existing bracket and

attachment fittings, checking alignment of

the fastener holes, measuring gaps, installing

a shim, and aligning the new bracket), in

accordance with Fokker Proforma Service

Bulletin F28/57–92, dated July 1, 1999;

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspections specified in paragraph

(a) of this AD for the replaced bracket.

(e) If any discrepancy is detected during

accomplishment of the replacement

procedures, and the service bulletin or any

appendix to the service bulletin specifies to

contact Fokker for appropriate action: Prior

to further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by either the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate; or the

Rijksluchtvaartdienst (or its delegated agent).

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(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 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Dutch airworthiness directive 1999–045/2,

dated October 31, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11227 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–274–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Model Hawker 800XP Series Airplanes

and Model Hawker 800 (U–125A

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 Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP

series airplanes and certain Model

Hawker 800 (U–125A military)

airplanes. This proposal would require

a one-time inspection of an attachment

bolt in the main landing gear (MLG)

door system to determine whether the

bolt’s protruding threads have been

peened; and corrective action, if