Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 949

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:

Boeing: Docket 95–NM–207–AD.

Applicability: Model 737–300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes having line numbers

1001 through 2791, 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

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 prevent adversely affected operation of

the fuse, which could result in the loss of all

hydraulic system pressure and consequent

severely reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes listed in Boeing Service

Bulletin 737–29–1070, dated June 8, 1995:

Within 4,000 flight hours after the effective

date of this AD, interchange the location of

the hydraulic fuse and the flow limiter of the

standby hydraulic system of the leading edge

so that the hydraulic fuse is positioned

upstream of the flow limiter, in accordance

with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–29–1070,

dated June 8, 1995.

(b) For airplanes listed in Boeing Service

Bulletin 737–29–1071, dated May 16, 1996:

Within 4,000 flight hours after the effective

date of this AD, replace the existing

hydraulic fuses in the standby hydraulic

system with new fuses that are not affected

by low temperature operation, in accordance

with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–29–1071,

dated May 16, 1996.

(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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 31, 1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–253 Filed 1–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–143–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

Industrie Model A320 and A321 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 Airbus Industrie Model A320

and A321 series airplanes. This

proposal would require replacement of

two elevator aileron computers (ELAC)

with ELAC’s that contain new software.

This proposal is prompted by reports

indicating that some of these airplanes

have experienced uncommanded

movements of the ailerons. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent situations, such as

uncommanded rolls during turbulent

conditions, which could lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

143–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

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2589; fax (206) 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 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, stamp

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 95–NM–143–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.
950 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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–143–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France, has

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Industrie Model A320 and A321 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has

received reports indicating that some of

these airplanes have experienced

uncommanded rolls; flight crews

reported these rolls as ranging from 5

degrees to 30 degrees.

The flight control system for both

airplane models uses fly-by-wire

technology. There are situations where

the sensitivity of the fly-by-wire design

creates safety concerns. Among these

situations are:

• When the flaps are set on CONF 3

or CONF FULL and turbulence is

encountered: The flight crew’s

responses, coupled with the handling

characteristics of the airplane, could

cause roll oscillations.

• When the flaps, during approach,

have jammed in the fully-extended

position and CONF 3 is subsequently

selected: It becomes difficult for the

flight crew to maintain the intended

flight path.

• When contaminants interfere with

proper operation of the sidestick

transducer unit: A possible consequence

is the transmission of transient signals

from the sidestick to the ELAC. These

signals could cause the ailerons to

‘‘jerk,’’ and result in an uncommanded

roll, regardless of the automatic pilot

mode and the stage of flight.

All of these situations, if not

corrected, could lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus Industrie has issued Service

Bulletin A320–27–1082, dated April 25,

1995, which describes procedures for

replacing the two ELAC’s installed in

the aft electronic rack 80VU with two

ELAC’s that have been modified. The

modifications entail the installation of

new software identified as ‘‘L69J

Standard,’’ a program that alters the

airplane’s flying qualities to reduce the

risk of encountering situations where

uncommanded roll and other unsafe

conditions are likely to occur. [This

service bulletin references Sextant

Service Bulletins 394512–27–014, dated

August 11, 1995 (for airplanes on which

modification 24136P3436 is not

installed), and C12370A–27–001, dated

May 2, 1995 (for airplanes on which

modification 24136P3436 is installed),

as additional sources of procedural

service information for modification of

the ELAC’s. Sextant is the supplier of

the ELAC’s.]

The DGAC classified the Airbus

Industrie service bulletin as mandatory

and issued French airworthiness

direction (C/N) 95–203–072(B), dated

October 11, 1995, as corrected by

Erratum, dated November 8, 1995, in

order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in French and is 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, the proposed AD would

require replacement of the two ELAC’s

installed in the aft electronic rack 80VU

with two ELAC’s that have been

modified to include L69J Standard

software. The actions would be required

to be accomplished in accordance with

the Airbus Industrie service bulletin

described previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 108 Airbus

Industrie Model A320 and A321 series

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

It would take approximately 3 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed actions, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Required

parts would be provided by the

manufacturer at no cost to the operator.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $19,440, or $180 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 AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

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. 106(g), 40101, 40113,

44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 95–NM–143–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 and A321 series

airplanes as listed in Airbus Industrie Service

Bulletin A320–27–1082, dated April 25,

1995; certificated in any category.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 951

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 (b) 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 reduced controllability of the

airplane, due to problems associated with the

elevator aileron computer (ELAC),

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 1 year after the effective date of

this AD, replace the ELAC’s having part

numbers (P/N) 3945122307 and/or P/N

C12370AAA01 and located in aft electronics

rack 80VU, with modified ELAC’s having P/

N 3945122502, in accordance with Airbus

Industrie Service Bulletin A320–27–1082,

dated April 25, 1995.

Note 2: Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin

A320–27–1082 references Sextant Service

Bulletins 394512–27–014, dated August 11,

1995 (for airplanes on which Airbus

Industrie modification 24136P3436 has not

been installed); and C12370A–27–001, dated

May 2, 1995 (for airplanes on which Airbus

Industrie modification 24136P3436 has been

installed); as additional sources of procedural

service information for modification of the

ELAC’s.

(b) 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(c) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 31, 1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–252 Filed 1–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–SW–32–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Hiller Aircraft

Corporation Model UH–12A, UH–12B,

UH–12C, UH–12D, and UH–12E

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to Hiller

Aircraft Corporation (Hiller) Model UH–

12A, UH–12B, UH–12C, UH–12D, and

UH–12E helicopters, that currently

requires a dye penetrant inspection of

the head of the main rotor outboard

tension-torsion (T–T) bar pin for cracks;

a visual inspection of the outboard T–

T bar pin for proper alignment and an

adjustment, if necessary; and,

installation of shims at the inboard end

of the drag strut. This action would

require the same actions required by the

existing AD, but would allow a

magnetic particle inspection of the T–T

bar pin as an alternative to the currently

required dye penetrant inspection, and

would require reporting the results of

the inspections only if cracks are found,

rather than reporting all results of

inspections as required by the existing

AD. This proposal is prompted by an

FAA analysis of a comment to the

existing AD, and the fact that no cracks

have been reported since the issuance of

the existing AD. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent cracks in the head area of the

outboard T–T bar pin, which could

result in loss of in-plane stability of the

main rotor blade and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 96–SW–32–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137. 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

Hiller Aircraft Corporation, 3200 Imjin

Road, Marina, California 93933–5101.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room

663, Fort Worth, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Charles Matheis, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,

Lakewood, California 90712–4137,

telephone (310) 627–5235, fax (310)

627–5210.

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

should 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 No. 96–SW32–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, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–SW–32–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Discussion

On May 25, 1995, the FAA issued AD

95–12–02, Amendment 39–9252 (60 FR

30184) to require for Hiller Model UH–

12A, UH–12B, UH–12C, UH–12D, and

UH–12E helicopters, within 25 hours

time-in-service (TIS) or at the next 100

hour inspection, whichever occurs first,

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

100 hours TIS: (1) an inspection of the

alignment of the outboard T–T bar pin

and an adjustment, if necessary; and (2)

an inspection for cracks in the head of

the outboard T–T bar pin using a dye