Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 945

information collection by industry and

public sector agencies. The Department

has not identified any relevant Federal

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict

with this proposed rule.

Finally, the Committee’s meetings

were widely publicized throughout the

spearmint oil industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend and

participate on all issues. Interested

persons are also invited to submit

information on the regulatory and

informational impacts of this action on

small businesses.

A 30-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. All written comments

received within the comment period

will be considered before a final

determination is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Spearmint oil.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 985 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER

REGULATING THE HANDLING OF

SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE

FAR WEST

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 985 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. A new § 985.216 is added to read

as follows:

[Note: This section will not appear in the

Code of Federal Regulations.]

§ 985.216 Salable quantities and allotment

percentages—1997–98 marketing year.

The salable quantity and allotment

percentage for each class of spearmint

oil during the marketing year beginning

on June 1, 1997, shall be as follows:

(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable

quantity of 996,522 pounds and an

allotment percentage of 55 percent.

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable

quantity of 1,125,351 pounds and an

allotment percentage of 56 percent.

Dated: December 31, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–281 Filed 1–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–215–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–100 and –200 Series

Airplanes

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 certain

Boeing Model 737–100 and –200 series

airplanes, that currently requires

various inspections for cracks in the

outboard chord of the frame at body

station (BS) 727 and in the outboard

chord of stringer 18A; and repair or

replacement of cracked parts. That AD

was prompted by reports of fatigue

cracks in those outboard chords. This

action would add inspections for certain

airplanes, and would revise certain

compliance times for all airplanes. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to detect and correct

fatigue cracking, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the

outboard chords, and subsequent rapid

decompression 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–

215–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Della Swartz, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; telephone (206) 227–2785;

fax (206) 227–1181.

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–215–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–215–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On June 5, 1995, the FAA issued AD

95–12–17, amendment 39–9268 (60 FR

36981, July 19, 1995), applicable to

certain Boeing Model 737–100 and –200

series airplanes, to require various

inspections for cracks in the outboard

chord of the frame at body station (BS)

727 and in the outboard chord of

stringer 18A; and repair or replacement

of cracked parts. That AD also provides

for an optional terminating action for

the required inspections. That action

was prompted by reports of fatigue

cracks in those outboard chords. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

detect and correct such fatigue cracking,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the outboard chords, and

subsequent rapid decompression of the

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

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has become aware that certain

airplanes that should be subject to the

requirements of that AD were omitted

inadvertently. At the time AD 95–12–17

was issued, the Boeing service bulletins

cited in the AD did not describe initial

or repetitive inspections for unmodified

airplanes that had accumulated less

than 27,000 total flight cycles. The FAA

has determined that airplanes that have

accumulated less than 27,000 total flight

cycles as of August 18, 1995, (the

effective date of AD 95–12–17) are

subject to the addressed unsafe

condition. The FAA finds that these

airplanes also must be inspected to

detect cracking in the outboard chords

in order to address the identified unsafe

condition in a timely manner.

Additionally, several operators have

expressed their concern with the

complexity of the compliance times of

AD 95–12–17. The operators have

advised the FAA that the currently

required ‘‘progressive’’ or ‘‘sliding’’

compliance times are difficult to track

and to schedule. These operators

maintain that the complexity of the

compliance times, in itself, will increase

the risk and likelihood of a missed

inspection occurring because of an

inadvertent scheduling oversight.

The FAA acknowledges the

commenters’ concern. Since the

issuance of AD 95–12–17, the FAA has

held further discussions with the

manufacturer in an effort to clarify and

simplify the compliance times. For

airplanes on which the upper outboard

chord has been replaced, the

compliance times of this proposal

reflect a revised initial threshold of

‘‘prior to the accumulation of 50,000

flight cycles since replacement of the

upper outboard chord, or within 4,500

flight cycles as of the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later.’’ For all

other airplanes, the compliance times of

this proposal reflect a revised initial

threshold of ‘‘prior to the accumulation

of 50,000 total flight cycles, or within

4,500 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs

later.’’ The repetitive inspections would

be required at intervals not to exceed

4,500 flight cycles for all affected

airplanes. The FAA has determined that

the revised compliance times will

address the unsafe condition in a timely

manner.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 95–12–17 to continue to

require various inspections to detect

cracking in the outboard chord of the

frame at BS 727 and in the outboard

chord of stringer 18A; and repair or

replacement of cracked parts. This

action would add inspections for certain

airplanes. This action also would revise

the threshold for accomplishment of the

initial inspection and would revise the

repetitive inspection interval for all

affected airplanes. This action also

continues to provide for an optional

terminating action for the required

inspections. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 737–53A1166, which is cited in

AD 95–12–17 as the appropriate source

of service information.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 999 Model

737–100 and –200 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 296 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 95–12–17 take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact on U.S.

operators of the actions currently

required is estimated to be $71,040, or

$240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

This proposed AD specifies

inspection requirements for airplanes

that were omitted inadvertently from

the existing AD. However, the costs

associated with the inspections for those

airplanes were included previously in

the cost impact on U.S. operators for

accomplishment of AD 95–12–17.

Therefore, the FAA estimates that no

additional costs would be required for

accomplishment of the proposed

requirements of this AD.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed 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

action that will be provided by this AD

action, it will take approximately 50

work hours to accomplish it, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$3,680 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of this optional

terminating action is estimated to be

$6,680 per airplane.

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), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–9268 (60 FR

36981, July 19, 1995), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Boeing: Docket 95–NM–215–AD. Supersedes

AD 95–12–17, Amendment 39–9268.

Applicability: Model 737–100 and –200

series airplanes; line numbers 1 through 999

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 947

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (f) of this AD 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 detect and correct fatigue cracking,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the outboard chords, and

subsequent rapid decompression of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes on which the body station

(BS) 727 frame upper outboard chord has

been replaced in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–53–1088: Prior to the

accumulation of 50,000 flight cycles since

replacement of the upper outboard chord, or

within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

perform close visual, pulse echo shear wave

(PESW), and high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) inspections to detect cracks in the

outboard chord of the frame at BS 727 and

in the outboard chord of stringer 18A.

Perform the inspections in accordance with

Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of

either Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1166, dated June 30, 1994; or Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–53A1166, Revision 1,

dated May 25, 1995. Thereafter, repeat these

inspections at intervals not to exceed 4,500

flight cycles.

(b) For airplanes on which the BS 727

frame outboard chord has not been replaced

or on which only the lower outboard chord

has been replaced in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–53–1088: Prior to the

accumulation of 50,000 total flight cycles, or

within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

perform close visual, PESW, and HFEC

inspections to detect cracks in the outboard

chord of the frame at BS 727 and in the

outboard chord of stringer 18A. Perform the

inspections in accordance with Part I of the

Accomplishment Instructions of either

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1166,

dated June 30, 1994; or Boeing Service

Bulletin 737–53A1166, Revision 1, dated

May 25, 1995. Thereafter, repeat these

inspections at intervals not to exceed 4,500

flight cycles.

(c) If any crack is found in the outboard

chord of stringer 18A during any inspection

required by this AD, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with either paragraph

(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD.

(1) Repair in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–53A1166, Revision 1,

dated May 25, 1995; or

(2) Repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, (ACO) FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate.

(d) If any crack is found in the outboard

chord of the frame at BS 727 during any

inspection required by this AD: Accomplish

paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD, as

applicable, in accordance with either Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1166, dated

June 30, 1994; or Boeing Service Bulletin

737–53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25,

1995. Thereafter, repeat the inspections

required by either paragraph (a) or (b) of this

AD, as applicable, at intervals not to exceed

4,500 flight cycles.

(1) If any crack extends from the forward

edge of the chord or from the forward

fastener hole, but does not extend past the

second fastener hole, accomplish either

paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Prior to further flight, install the timelimited repair. Prior to the accumulation of

4,500 flight cycles or within 18 months after

accomplishment of the repair, whichever

occurs first, replace the outboard chord. Or

(ii) Prior to further flight, replace the

outboard chord.

Note 2: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1166 references Boeing Service Bulletin

737–53–1088 as an additional source of

service information for procedures to replace

the chord.

(2) If any crack extends from the forward

edge of the chord, or from the forward

fastener hole, and extends past the second

fastener hole, prior to further flight, replace

the outboard chord in accordance with either

the original issue or Revision 1 of the service

bulletin.

(e) Accomplishment of the following

actions in accordance with either Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1166, dated

June 30, 1994, or Boeing Service Bulletin

737–53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25,

1995, constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(1) For airplanes on which no crack is

found: Install the preventative modification

in accordance with either the original issue

or Revision 1 of the service bulletin.

(2) For airplanes on which any crack is

found: Prior to further flight, replace the

cracked chord and install the preventative

modification in accordance with either the

original issue or Revision 1 of the service

bulletin.

(f) 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

ACO. 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(g) 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. 97–254 Filed 1–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–207–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 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 Boeing Model 737–300, –400,

and –500 series airplanes. This proposal

would require interchanging the

location of the hydraulic fuse and the

flow limiter of the standby hydraulic

system of the leading edge. The

proposed AD also would require

replacing the existing hydraulic fuses in

the standby hydraulic system with new

fuses. This proposal is prompted by

reports of a performance test of the

hydraulic fuses, which revealed that the

positioning of the flow limiter in the

existing configuration, and excessive

fusing volumes of some of the fuses, can

adversely affect the operation of the

fuse. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

such 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.

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–

207–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport