Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14395

5. In § 112.7, paragraphs (c)(2) and

(d)(6) would be revised as follows:

§ 112.7 Special additional requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Subsequent revaccination as

determined from the results of duration

of immunity studies conducted as

prescribed in § 113.209, paragraphs (b)

or (c), or both.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(6) Subsequent revaccination as

determined from the results of duration

of immunity studies conducted as

prescribed in § 113.312, paragraphs (b)

or (c), or both.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 13 day of

March 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6650 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–02–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 repetitive checks to detect

backlash in the elevator mechanical

control system, and various follow-on

actions. The proposed AD would also

provide for an optional terminating

action for the repetitive check

requirements. This proposal is

prompted by a report indicating that

corrosion was found on the pivot bolts

and bushings of the backlash remover

lever mechanism on the elevator booster

control unit (BCU) of a Model F28 Mark

0100 series airplane. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent such corrosion,

which could result in backlash in the

elevator controls and reduced elevator

control authority in the manual mode.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

02–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) 227–1100.

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–02–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–02–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 all Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100

series airplanes equipped with a certain

Menasco Aerospace Elevator Booster

Control Unit (BCU). The RLD advises

that corrosion was found on the pivot

bolts and bushings of the backlash

remover lever mechanism on the

elevator BCU of Model F28 Mark 0100

series airplanes. This mechanism

prevents backlash in the elevator control

forces when the elevator BCU is not

hydraulically powered, providing the

pilot with full manual control of the

elevator system. Investigation revealed

that corrosion on the pivot bolts and

bushings causes the backlash remover

mechanism to stick, which results in

deteriorated elevator control when the

BCU is in manual mode. This condition,

if not corrected, could result in backlash

in the elevator controls and reduced

elevator control authority in the manual

mode.

Fokker has issued Service Bulletin

SBF100–27–052, Revision 1, dated

March 29, 1994, which describes

procedures for:

1. Performing repetitive operational

checks to detect backlash in the elevator

mechanical control system;

2. Performing an inspection to

determine whether certain elevator BCU

bolts rotate and slide freely, and to

detect corrosion on the bolts of the

backlash remover lever mechanism, if

any backlash is detected; and

3. Replacing the elevator BCU or bolts

with a serviceable part, if any anomaly

is detected.

The RLD classified this service

bulletin as mandatory and issued Dutch

airworthiness directive BLA 93–051/3

(A), dated April 29, 1994, in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in the Netherlands.

Additionally, Fokker has issued

Service Bulletin SBF100–27–061, dated

March 2, 1994, which provides

instructions for accomplishing an

optional modification of the affected

elevator BCU, which would eliminate

the need for the repetitive operational

checks. This modification involves

replacing two bolts in the elevator BCU

with new bolts.

This airplane model is manufactured

in the Netherlands and is type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section
14396 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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

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

repetitive operational checks to detect

backlash in the elevator mechanical

control system. The proposed AD would

also require performing an inspection to

determine whether certain elevator BCU

bolts rotate and slide freely, and to

detect corrosion on the bolts of the

backlash remover lever mechanism, if

any backlash is detected; and replacing

the elevator BCU or bolts with a

serviceable part, if any anomaly is

detected. Additionally, the proposed AD

would provide for an optional

modification of certain elevator BCU’s;

or replacement of a certain elevator BCU

with a unit having a certain serial

number, which would constitute

terminating action for the repetitive

operational check requirements. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletins described previously.

The proposed AD would also require

performing appropriate trouble-shooting

procedures, if no anomalies are detected

in accordance with the Airplane

Maintenance Manual.

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 requirement.

The FAA estimates that 112 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts would be

supplied by the manufacturer at no cost

to the operators. Based on these figures,

the total cost impact of the proposed AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$6,720, or $60 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–02–AD.

Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series

airplanes; equipped with Menasco Aerospace

Elevator Booster Control Unit (BCU) having

part number (P/N) 23400–3 or P/N 23400–5

with serial numbers MC–001 through MC–

288 inclusive; 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 (e) 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 backlash in the elevator

controls and reduced elevator control

authority in the manual mode, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 500 flight cycles or 60 days after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, perform an operational check to

detect backlash in the elevator mechanical

control system, in accordance with Part 1 of

the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker

Service Bulletin SBF100–27–052, Revision 1,

dated March 29, 1994. Repeat the check

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight

cycles or 60 days, whichever occurs first.

(b) If any backlash is detected during any

operational check required by paragraph (a)

of this AD, prior to further flight, perform an

inspection to determine whether the elevator

BCU bolts, having part numbers

NAS6204C22D and P/N NAS6204C13D,

rotate and slide freely, and to detect

corrosion on the bolts of the backlash

remover lever mechanism; in accordance

with Part 2 of the Accomplishment

Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin

SBF100–27–052, Revision 1, dated March 29,

1994.

(1) If no anomalies are detected, prior to

further flight, perform appropriate troubleshooting procedures in accordance with the

Airplane Maintenance Manual.

(2) If any anomaly is detected, prior to

further flight, replace the elevator BCU or

bolts, as applicable, with serviceable parts, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(c) Modification of the affected elevator

BCU having P/N 23400–3 or –5, in

accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin

SBF100–27–061, dated March 2, 1994; or

replacement of any affected elevator BCU

having P/N 23400–3 or –5 with a unit having
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14397

a serial number other than MC–001 through

MC–288 inclusive, in accordance with the

Airplane Maintenance Manual; constitutes

terminating action for the repetitive check

requirements of this AD.

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

person shall install Menasco Aerospace

Elevator Booster Control Unit (BCU) having

part number (P/N) 23400–3 or P/N 23400–5

with serial numbers MC–001 through MC–

288 inclusive on any airplane.

(e) 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.

(f) 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 March

13, 1995.

Neil D. Schalekamp,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6632 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–AWA–5]

Proposed Modification of the

Pensacola Regional, FL, Lexington

Blue Grass, KY, Fayetteville Regional/

Grannis Field, NC, Pope AFB, NC, and

Providence Theodore Francis Green

State, RI, Class C Airspace Areas and

Proposed Establishment of the

Pensacola Regional, FL, and

Providence Theodore Francis Green

State, RI, Class E Airspace Areas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

modify the Class C airspace areas at

Pensacola Regional, FL, Lexington, Blue

Grass, KY, Fayetteville Regional/

Grannis Field, NC, Pope AFB, NC, and

Providence, Theodore Francis Green

State, RI, Airports. This proposed action

would modify the Lexington Blue Grass,

KY, Fayetteville Regional/Grannis Field,

NC, and Pope AFB, NC, airspace

designations to reflect continuous

operation and availability of services,

therein. The effective hours of the

Pensacola Regional, FL, and Providence,

Theodore Francis Green State, RI, Class

C airspace areas would be amended to

coincide with the associated radar

approach control facility’ hours of

operation. Class C airspace areas are

predicated on an operational air traffic

control tower (ATCT) serviced by a

radar approach control facility. This

proposal would not change the

designated boundaries or altitudes of

these Class C airspace areas. In addition,

this action proposes to establish Class E

airspace at Pensacola Regional, FL, and

Providence, Theodore Francis Green

State, RI, Airports when the associated

radar approach control facility is not in

operation.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket

[AGC–200], Airspace Docket No. 95–

AWA–5, 800 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20591.

The official docket may be examined

in the Rules Docket, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Room 916, 800 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington DC,

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the office of the Regional Air Traffic

Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia P. Crawford, Airspace and

Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP–

240), Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical

Information Division, Air Traffic Rules

and Procedures Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)

267–9255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped, postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95–

AWA–5.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Rules Docket both

before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of

Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry

Center, APA–220, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or

by calling (202) 267–3485.

Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRM’s should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A that describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

modify the Class C airspace areas at

Pensacola Regional, FL, Lexington, Blue

Grass, KY, Fayetteville Regional/

Grannis Field, NC, Pope AFB, NC, and

Providence, Theodore Francis Green

State, RI, Airports. This proposed action

would modify the Lexington, Blue

Grass, KY, Fayetteville Regional/

Grannis Field, NC, and Pope AFB, NC,

airspace designation to reflect

continuous operation and availability of

services, therein. The effective hours of

the Pensacola Regional, FL, and

Providence, Theodore Francis Green

State, RI, Class C airspace areas would

be amended to coincide with the

associated radar approach control

facility’s hours of operation. Class C

airspace areas are predicated on an

operational ATCT serviced by a radar

approach control facility. This proposal

would not change the designated

boundaries or altitudes of these Class C

airspace areas. In addition, this notice

proposes to establish Class E airspace at