Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2000-03-27 · Federal Aviation Administration, DOT · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; withdrawal

521 words·~2 min read·/register/2000/03/27/00-7460·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Agency: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
Action: Proposed rule; withdrawal
Citation: FR Doc. 00-7460 · RIN 2120-AA64 · Docket No. 97-NM-203-AD · 14 CFR 39

Summary

This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes. That action would have required installation of two reinforcing brackets on the keel beam in the lower shell of the main landing gear bay. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received new data indicating that the unsafe condition addressed in the NPRM does not exist. Accordingly, the proposed rule is withdrawn.

Supplementary Information

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 6, 1998 (63 FR 16715). The proposed rule would have required installation of two reinforcing brackets on the keel beam in the lower shell of the main landing gear bay. That action was prompted by a report of cracking of the keel beam that was discovered during full-scale fatigue testing. The proposed actions were intended to prevent fatigue cracking of the keel beam, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Actions That Occurred Since the NPRM Was Issued Since the issuance of that NPRM, the manufacturer has provided the FAA with additional information regarding the unsafe condition identified in the proposed AD. The manufacturer states that an analysis has been accomplished that shows that if the cracking addressed by the proposed AD propagated to its maximum limit, the airplane could still withstand ultimate structural loads. FAA's Conclusions Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that fatigue cracking of the keel beam, which was intended to be addressed by the corrective actions required in the proposed AD, does not constitute an unsafe condition. Accordingly, the proposed rule is hereby withdrawn. Withdrawal of this notice of proposed rulemaking constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another notice in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 97-NM-203-AD, published in the Federal Register on April 6, 1998 (63 FR 16715), is withdrawn. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 21, 2000. Donald L. Riggin, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 00-7460 Filed 3-24-00; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
1 reference not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule; withdrawal
Cite14 CFR 39
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.