Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 47423

funding and will not exceed $3.41

million on a nationwide basis.

Compared with the value of the U.S.

cattle industry and its importance to the

national economy, the actual costs of

increased indemnity for depopulating

all animals in all brucellosis-affected

herds is small. Competitiveness in the

international market depends upon a

reputation for producing high-quality,

disease-free animals. Both the actual

product and the purchasers’ perception

of the product’s quality contribute to

continued world market acceptance.

While isolated brucellosis outbreaks

resulting in relatively small potential

losses in cattle production can reduce

the confidence of importers and cause a

loss of trade, the damage that would

result from a widespread brucellosis

infection would be extremely costly and

harmful to U.S. gross national income.

Therefore, efforts to eradicate

brucellosis and secure the health of the

cattle industry continue to serve the

economic interests of the Nation. The

increased indemnity payments

promulgated by this rule are expected to

provide a stronger incentive for wholeherd depopulation of affected cattle.

This rule should result in savings to the

eradication program because the rule

will facilitate the program’s progress.

The overall effect of this rule upon

supply, price, and competitiveness is

expected to be minor or none.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 51

Animal diseases, Cattle, Hogs,

Indemnity payments, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR

part 51 as follows:

PART 51—ANIMALS DESTROYED

BECAUSE OF BRUCELLOSIS

1. The authority citation for part 51

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–113, 114, 114a,

114a–1, 120, 121, 125, and 134b; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 51.3, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 51.3 Payment to owners for animals

destroyed.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) Fixed-rate method. The indemnity

shall not exceed $250 per animal for

bison and nonregistered cattle other

than dairy cattle and $750 per animal

for registered cattle and nonregistered

dairy cattle.

* * * * *

3. In § 51.9, paragraph (d) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 51.9 Claims not allowed.

* * * * *

(d) If the animals are:

(1) Barrows or gilts maintained for

feeding purposes; or

(2) Spayed heifers or steers, unless the

steers are work oxen, or unless the

spayed heifers or steers are unweaned

animals in a herd approved for

depopulation in accordance with § 51.3

of this part.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of

August, 1998.

Joan M. Arnoldi,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–24016 Filed 9–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–18–AD; Amendment

39–10742; AD 98–18–26]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A320 series airplanes, that requires

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking of the front spar vertical

stringers on the wings; and repair, if

necessary. This amendment also

provides for an optional terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

This amendment is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to detect and correct fatigue

cracking of the front spar vertical

stringers on the wings, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the airframe.

DATES: Effective October 13, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of October 13,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Airbus A320

series airplanes was published in the

Federal Register on May 5, 1998 (63 FR

24760). That action proposed to require

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking of the front spar vertical

stringers on the wings; and repair, if

necessary. That action also proposed to

provide for an optional terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request To Allow Flight With Known

Cracks

One commenter, the manufacturer,

requests that the proposed AD be

revised to allow operators to continue

operation of an unrepaired airplane

following detection of cracks, utilizing

the follow-on inspections and

conditions described in Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–57–1016, Revision 1,

dated December 6, 1995. The

commenter states that the follow-on

inspection intervals are based on fatigue

test results and calculations of the crack

propagation rate, depending on the

crack length. The commenter also states

that the structure of the Airbus Model

A320 series airplane is classified as

damage tolerant. Additionally, the

commenter notes that the inspection

program specified in the service bulletin

was developed in order to prevent the

need for extensive repairs of the aircraft.

The FAA does not concur. It is the

FAA’s policy to require repair of known

cracks prior to further flight, except in

certain cases of unusual need, as
47424 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

discussed below. This policy is based

on the fact that such damaged airplanes

do not conform to the FAA certificated

type design, and therefore, are not

airworthy until a properly approved

repair is incorporated. While

recognizing that repair deferrals may be

necessary at times, the FAA policy is

intended to minimize adverse human

factors relating to the lack of reliability

of long-term repetitive inspections,

which may reduce the safety of the type

certificated design if such repair

deferrals are practiced routinely.

As noted above, the FAA’s policy

regarding flight with known cracks does

allow deferral of repairs in certain cases,

if there is an unusual need for a

temporary deferral. Unusual needs

include such circumstances as

legitimate difficulty in acquiring parts to

accomplish repairs. Under such

conditions, the FAA may allow a

temporary deferral of the repair, subject

to a stringent inspection program

acceptable to the FAA. The FAA

acknowledges that the manufacturer has

specified inspection intervals that are

intended to allow continued operation

with known cracks, and to prevent the

need for extensive repairs. However,

since the FAA is not aware of any

unusual need for repair deferral in

regard to this AD, the FAA has not

evaluated these inspection intervals.

Additionally, the FAA policy applies

to airplanes certificated to damage

tolerance evaluation regulations as well

as those not so certificated. Therefore,

the commenter’s statement that ‘‘the

Airbus Model A320 airplane structure is

classified as damage tolerant’’ is not

relevant to the application of the FAA’s

policy in this regard.

The FAA considers the compliance

times in this AD to be adequate to allow

operators to acquire parts to have on

hand in the event that a crack is

detected during inspection. Therefore,

the FAA has determined that, due to the

safety implications and consequences

associated with such cracking, any

subject bottom flange or fastener hole

that is found to be cracked must be

repaired or modified prior to further

flight. No change to the final rule is

necessary.

Request To Revise Service Bulletin

Dates

One commenter supports the intent of

the proposed AD, but requests that it be

revised to reflect the correct issuance

date for Revision 1 of Airbus Service

Bulletins A320–57–1016 and A320–57–

1017. The commenter states that the

correct issuance date for both of these

service bulletins is September 3, 1991.

The FAA does not concur. The original

version of these service bulletins is

dated September 3, 1991, rather than

Revision 1. Therefore, the FAA finds

that no change to the final rule is

necessary.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 16 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 2

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required inspection, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the inspection required by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,920,

or $120 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

modification, rather than continue the

repetitive inspections, it would require

approximately 6 work hours to

accomplish it, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $700 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the optional terminating

modification provided by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,060

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this 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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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:

98–18–26 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–10742. Docket 98–NM–18–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes

on which Airbus Modification 21290

(reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–

1017, Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997) has

not been installed, certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 detect and correct fatigue cracking of

the front spar vertical stringers on the wings,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airframe, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total

flight cycles, or within 60 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform an eddy current inspection to

detect fatigue cracking of the front spar

vertical stringers on the wings, in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1016,

Revision 1, dated December 6, 1995.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 47425

(1) If no crack is detected, repeat the eddy

current inspection thereafter at intervals not

to exceed 14,000 flight cycles.

(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate; or the Direction Generale de

l’Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent).

Thereafter, repeat the eddy current

inspection at intervals not to exceed 14,000

flight cycles.

(b) Modification of the front spar vertical

stringers on the wings, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1017,

Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997,

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of this

AD.

(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. 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.

(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.

(e) The inspections shall be done in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1016, Revision 1, dated December

6, 1995, which contains the following list of

effective pages:

Page No. Revision level

shown on page

Date shown

on page

1–4, 7 ....... 1 ...................... Dec. 6, 1995

5–6, 8–13 Original ........... Sept. 3, 1991

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 97–311–

105(B), dated October 22, 1997.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

October 13, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August

28, 1998.

Vi L. Lipski, Acting Manager,

Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–23738 Filed 9–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD08–98–054]

RIN 2115–AE46

Special Local Regulations; 1998 Busch

Beer Drag Boat Classic; Kaskaskia

River Mile 28.0–29.0, New Athens,

Illinois

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: Special local regulations are

being adopted for the Busch Beer Drag

Boar Classic. This event will be held on

September 12 and 13, 1998 from 7 a.m.

until 8 p.m. at New Athens, Illinois.

These regulations are needed to provide

for the safety of life on navigable waters

during the event.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are

effective from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m., on

September 12 and 13, 1998..

ADDRESSES: All documents referred to in

this regulation are available for review

at Marine Safety Office, St. Louis, 1222

Spruce Street, St. Louis, Missouri

63103–2835.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant D. Schroder, USCG Marine

Safety Office, St. Louis, Missouri at

(314) 539–3091, ext. 01.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The drafters of this regulation are

Lieutenant D. Schroder, Project Officer,

USCG Marine Safety Office, St. Louis,

and LTJG M. Woodruff, Project

Attorney, Eighth Coast Guard District

Legal Office.

Regulatory History

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a

notice of proposed rule making for these

regulations has not been published, and

good cause exists for making them

effective in less than 30 days from the

date of publication in the Federal

Register. Following normal rule making

procedures would be impracticable. The

details of the event were not finalized in

sufficient time to publish proposed

rules in advance of the event or to

provide for a delayed effective date.

Background and Purpose

The marine event requiring this

regulation is a two day drag boat event

consisting of numerous races through

each day on September 12 and 13. The

Kaskaskia River at mile 28.0–29.0 will

be closed during these events. The event

is sponsored by the St. Louis Drag Boat

Association.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office Management and Budget

under that order. It is not significant

under the regulatory policies and

procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this rule

to be so minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary because of the

event’s short duration, and commercial

vessel transit schedule stated above.

Small Entities

The Coast Guard finds that the

impact, if any, on small entities is not

substantial. Therefore, the Coast Guard

certifies under section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq) that this temporary rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because of the event’s short duration,

and commercial vessel transit schedule

stated above.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no information

collection requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et. seq).

Federalism Assessment

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

action in accordance with the principles

and criteria of Executive Order 12612

and has determined that this rule does

not raise sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Environmental Assessment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that under section 2–1,

paragraph (34)(h) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

excluded from further environmental

documentation.