10230 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–33–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolladen

Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH Models

LS 3, LS 4, and LS 6c Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain

Rolladen Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH

(Rolladen Schneider) Models LS 3, LS 4,

and LS 6c sailplanes. The proposed AD

would require you to inspect the

airbrake levers in the wing for lower end

corrosion and for play in flight direction

when fully extended and retracting

under load; replace the bearings if there

is jamming under load or if corrosion is

found; and adjust the lower lever

member (only for the Model LS 3). The

proposed AD is the result of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI) issued by the airworthiness

authority for Germany. The actions

specified by this proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct corrosion

damage to the airbrake levers and

bearings caused by collection of water

in the air brake boxes, not detected

during postflight checks. This condition

could result in the airbrakes locking in

the extended position and a consequent

off-field or short landing.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this proposed rule by

April 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of

comments to FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–

33–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106. You may read

comments at this location between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays.

You may get service information that

applies to the proposed AD from

Rolladen-Schneider Flugzeugbau

GmbH, Muhlstrasse 10, D–63329

Egelsbach, Germany; phone: ++ 49 6103

204126; facsimile: ++ 49 6103 45526.

You may look at this information at the

Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 329–4144; facsimile:

(816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on the proposed

AD? We invite your comments on the

proposed rule. You may send whatever

written data, views, or arguments you

choose. You need to include the rule’s

docket number and send your

comments in triplicate to the address

specified under the caption ADDRESSES.

We will consider all comments received

by the closing date specified above,

before acting on the proposed rule. We

may change the proposals contained in

this notice in light of the comments

received.

Are there any specific portions of the

proposed AD I should pay attention to?

The FAA specifically invites comments

on the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule that might require a

change to the proposed rule. You may

look at all comments we receive. We

will file a report in the Rules Docket

that summarizes each FAA contact with

the public that concerns the substantive

parts of this proposal.

We are re-examining the writing style

we currently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on the ease

of understanding this document, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.faa.gov/language/.

How can I be sure FAA receives my

comment? If you want us to

acknowledge the receipt of your

comments, you must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. On the

postcard, write ‘‘Comments to Docket

No. 2000–CE–33–AD.’’ We will date

stamp and mail the postcard back to

you.

Discussion

What events have caused this

proposed AD? The LBA, which is the

airworthiness authority for Germany,

recently notified FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Rolladen

Schneider Models LS 3, LS 4, and LS 6c

sailplanes. The LBA reports one

occurrence of corroded bearings on the

lower ends of air brake levers found on

the above-referenced sailplanes. The

damage was possibly the result of

improper postflight checks. It has been

reported that in some cases, the

corrosion, occurring over a long time,

could cause bearing failure and

consequent locking of air brakes in the

extended position.

What are the consequences if the

condition is not corrected? If the

airbrakes lock in the extended position,

inadvertent off-field or short landing

conditions might occur.

Is there service information that

applies to this subject? Rolladen

Schneider has issued these technical

bulletins dated September 14, 1999:

—No. 3051;

—No. 4043; and

—No. 6037.

What are the provisions of these

service bulletins? These service

bulletins specifies procedures for:

—Inspecting air brake levers in the wing

for lower end corrosion and for play

in flight direction when fully

extended; inspect for retraction under

load; replacing the bearings if there is

jamming under load or if corrosion is

found; and

—Adjusting the lower lever member

(only for the Model LS 3).

What action did the LBA take? The

LBA classified these service bulletins as

mandatory and issued these German

AD’s, dated March 9, 2000, to ensure the

continued airworthiness of these

sailplanes in Germany:

—2000–076;

—2000–082; and

—2000–085.

Was this in accordance with the

bilateral airworthiness agreement?

These sailplane models are

manufactured in Germany and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of § 21.29 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement.

Complying with this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the LBA has

kept FAA informed of the situation

described above.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What has FAA decided? The FAA has

examined the findings of the LBA;

reviewed all available information,

including the service information

referenced above; and determined that:

—The unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on other Rolladen Schneider Models

LS 3, LS 4, and LS 6c sailplanes of the

same type design;

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10231

—The actions specified in the

previously-referenced service

information should be done on the

affected sailplanes; and

—AD action should be taken in order to

correct this unsafe condition.

What would the proposed AD require?

This proposed AD would require you to

do the actions specified in the

previously referenced service

information.

Cost Impact

How many sailplanes would the

proposed AD impact? We estimate that

the proposed AD would affect 175

sailplanes in the U.S. registry.

What would be the cost impact of the

proposed AD on owners/operators of the

affected sailplanes? We estimate the

following costs to do the proposed

inspection:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per

sailplane

Total cost on U.S.

sailplane

operators

2 workhours × $60 per hour = $120 ....................... Not applicable ........................................................ $120 $21,000

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary bearing replacement that would be required because of the

results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of sailplanes that may need bearings

replaced:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per sailplane

30 workhours × $60 per hour = $1,800. ............................ $35 for bearings + $550 for levers = $585. ....................... $2,385

Compliance Time of the Proposed AD

What would be the compliance time

of the proposed AD? The compliance

time of this proposed AD is within the

next 30 calendar days after the effective

date of this AD.

Why is the compliance time presented

in calendar time instead of hours timein-service (TIS)? Because of the typical

use of sailplanes, calendar days

compliance time was deemed more

suitable than time in service. For

example, one sailplane operator may

use the sailplane 50 hours in 1 month

while another may only accumulate 50

hours in 1 year.

Why is the compliance time of the

proposed AD different from the German

AD and the service information? The

service information specifies the actions

required in this proposed AD ‘‘before

next flight’’ and the German AD

mandates these actions ‘‘before next

take-off, when play at levers is existent’’

for sailplanes registered for operation in

Germany. The FAA does not have

justification for requiring the action

before further flight. Compliance times

such as these are used for urgent safety

of flight conditions. Instead, FAA has

determined that 30 calendar days is a

reasonable time period for doing the

inspection in this proposed AD.

Regulatory Impact

Would this proposed AD impact

various entities? The regulations

proposed 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 proposed rule

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

Would this proposed AD involve a

significant rule or regulatory action? For

the reasons discussed above, I certify

that this proposed action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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 has been placed 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, under 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. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD) to

read as follows:

Rolladen Schneider Flugzeugbau GMBH:

Docket No. 2000–CE–33–AD

(a) What sailplanes are affected by this

AD? This AD affects Models LS 3, LS 4, and

LS 6c sailplanes, all serial numbers,

certificated in any category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above sailplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct corrosion damage to the

airbrake levers and bearings caused by

collection of water in the air brake boxes not

detected during postflight checks. This

condition could result in the airbrakes

locking in the extended position and a

consequent off-field or short landing.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, unless already done, you must do

the following:

10232 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Actions Compliance Procedures

(1) Inspect the airbrake levers in the wing for

lower end corrosion and for play in flight direction when fully extended, and retracting

under load.

Within the next 30 calendar days after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at

every three calendar years.

Do these actions following the applicable

Rolladen Schneider Technical Bulletin:

Model LS 3: No. 3051, dated September 14,

1999;

Model LS 4: No. 4043, dated September 14,

1999; or

Model LS 6c: No. 6037, dated September 14,

1999.

(2) Replace the bearings if there is jamming

under the load.

Before further flight after the inspection required by this AD.Do this action following the applicable

Rolladen Schneider Technical Bulletin:

Model LS 3: No. 3051, dated September 14,

1999;

Model LS 4: No. 4043, dated September 14,

1999; or

Model LS 6c: No. 6037, dated September 14,

1999.

(3) If corrosion of the bearings is found, but no

jamming, replace the bearings.

Within 6 calendar months after the inspection

required by this AD.

Do this action following the applicable

Rolladen Schneider Technical Bulletin:

Model LS 3: No. 3051, dated September 14,

1999;

Model LS 4: No. 4043, dated September 14,

1999; or

Model LS 6c: No. 6037, dated September 14,

1999.

(4) For only the Model LS 3, adjust the lower

lever member.

Within the next 30 calendar days after the effective date of this AD.Do this action following the procedures contained in Rolladen Schneider Technical Bulletin No. 3051, dated September 14, 1999.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, approves your alternative.

Submit your request through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For sailplanes 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 (e)

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 you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specify

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Mike Kiesov, Aerospace

Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4121; facsimile:

(816) 329–4091.

(g) What if I need to fly the sailplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your sailplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may get copies of

the documents referenced in this AD from

Rolladen-Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH,

Muhlstrasse 10, D–63329 Egelsbach,

Germany. You may read these documents at

FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in these German AD’s dated March 9, 2000:

—2000–076;

—2000–082; and

—2000–085.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January

22, 2001.

David R. Showers,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3678 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–347–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Model DHC–8–100, –200, and –300

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 Bombardier Model DHC–8–100,

–200, and –300 series airplanes. This

proposal would require removing

certain foam filters from the cabin

ducting installation located below the

dado panels on the left- and right-hand

sides of the airplane. This action is

necessary to prevent an increased risk of

spreading a fire or failure of the cabin

to pressurize adequately if certain foam

filters are installed. This action is

intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

347–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. 2000–NM–347–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.