55726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(s) Positions with compensation fixed

under 5 U.S.C. 5351–5356 when filled

by student-employees assigned or

attached to Government hospitals,

clinics or medical or dental laboratories.

Employment under this authority may

not exceed 4 years.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–28437 Filed 10–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–155–AD; Amendment

39–10177; AD 97–22–06]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Airbus Model A300,

A310, and A300–600 series airplanes,

that requires performing a ram air

turbine (RAT) extension test; removing

and disassembling the RAT uplock

mechanism; performing an inspection to

detect corrosion of the RAT uplock

mechanism, and replacement with a

new assembly, if necessary; and

cleaning all the parts of the RAT control

shaft and its bearing component parts.

This amendment is prompted by reports

indicating that the RAT did not extend

during ground testing, due to corrosion

in the uplock pin/shaft and the needle

bearing of the RAT. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

detect and correct such corrosion of the

RAT, which could result in failure of

the RAT to deploy and subsequent loss

of emergency hydraulic power to the

flight controls in the event that power

is lost in both engines.

DATES: Effective December 2, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of December

2, 1997.

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:

Manager, International Office, ANM–

113, 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 all Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on February 19, 1997 (62 FR

7380). That action proposed to require

a RAT extension test during ground

testing; removal and disassembly of the

RAT uplock mechanism; a visual

inspection to detect corrosion of the

RAT uplock mechanism, and

replacement of the assembly with new

parts, if necessary; and cleaning of the

lever assembly and its associated parts.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Revision of Descriptive Language

One commenter points out that

throughout the proposed AD it

references ram air turbine (RAT) uplock

assembly and lever assembly as if these

assemblies are the same unit. However,

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–29–2076,

dated April 1, 1996 (which is referenced

in the proposal as an appropriate source

of service information) refers to these

assemblies as separate units. The FAA

finds that clarification of this point is

necessary.

The FAA finds that ‘‘RAT uplock

assembly’’ does not appear in the

proposed AD, but ‘‘RAT lever assembly’’

does. The FAA has determined that the

phrase ‘‘RAT uplock mechanism,’’

which includes both the lever assembly

and uplock unit, provides a more

complete description, than the phrase,

‘‘RAT lever assembly.’’ The FAA has

revised the final rule to include

reference to ‘‘RAT uplock mechanism’’

and added a new NOTE 2 to provide a

definition of that phrase.

Clarification of Requirements

One commenter points out that

paragraph (a) of the proposed AD

references accomplishment of paragraph

(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of the AD;

however, paragraph (a)(3) and (a)(4) of

the proposed AD are missing. The FAA

acknowledges that it inadvertently

included a reference to paragraphs (a)(3)

and (a)(4) in paragraph (a) of the

proposed AD. The FAA has revised

paragraph (a) of the final rule to delete

these references.

Request To Defer Replacement of

Corroded Parts

One commenter requests that

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) be revised to allow

reinstallation of the corroded part and

require its replacement within 30 days.

The commenter points out that

operators would have to stock every part

of the subject assembly at the inspection

stations (which is not very practical), or

its airplanes would have unnecessary

time out-of-service while waiting for

parts. The FAA has reconsidered

replacing corroded parts prior to further

flight. The FAA finds that the cleaning

and lubrication procedures of the RAT

uplock mechanism can be accomplished

on a temporary basis, in lieu of

replacement of corroded parts.

However, unlike the 12-month

compliance time recommended in the

Airbus service bulletins specified as the

appropriate service information for this

AD, the FAA has determined that the

corroded parts must be replaced within

30 days following accomplishment of

the cleaning and lubrication. The FAA

finds that this compliance time

represents the maximum interval of

time allowable wherein the subject

replacement could reasonably be

accomplished, uncorroded parts could

be obtained, and an acceptable level of

safety could be maintained. Therefore,

the FAA has revised paragraph (a)(2)(ii)

of the final rule accordingly.

Revision of Compliance Time in

Paragraph (a) of this AD

In addition, the compliance time

specified in paragraph (a) of this AD has

been revised to state, ‘‘30 months since

date of manufacture,’’ rather than ‘‘30

months total time-in-service,’’ as stated

in the proposed rule. This change

clarifies that the compliance is to be

determined based on calendar time,

without regard to the amount of time for

which the airplane is operated.

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 with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55727

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 80 Airbus

Model A300, A310, and A300–600

series airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 10 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $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 AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$48,000, or $600 per airplane.

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.

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:

97–22–06 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–10177. Docket 96-NM–155-AD.

Applicability: All Model Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 series airplanes,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

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 corrosion of the ram

air turbine (RAT) uplock pin/shaft and

needle that could result in failure of the RAT

to deploy and subsequent loss of emergency

hydraulic power to the flight controls in the

event that power is lost in both engines,

accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 30 months

since the date of manufacture, or within 3

months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later: Accomplish the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)

of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–29–0108, dated April 1, 1996

(for Model A300 series airplanes); A310–29–

2076, dated April 1, 1996 (for Model A310

series airplanes); or A300–29–6037, dated

April 1, 1996 (for Model A300–600 series

airplanes); as applicable. Thereafter, repeat

these actions at intervals not to exceed 30

months.

(1) Perform a RAT extension test on the

ground, in accordance with the procedures

specified in the Maintenance Manual.

(2) Disassemble and remove the uplock

mechanism of the RAT and perform a visual

inspection of the uplock mechanism to detect

corrosion, in accordance with the applicable

service bulletin.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, the

RAT uplock mechanism includes both the

lever assembly and uplock unit.

(i) If no corrosion is detected: Prior to

further flight, clean and lubricate the uplock

mechanism and its associated parts, reinstall

the assembly, and perform a retraction/

extension/retraction of the RAT, in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletin.

(ii) If any corrosion is detected in any part

of the uplock mechanism, prior to further

flight, accomplish either paragraph

(a)(2)(ii)(A) or (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletin.

(A) Replace the uplock mechanism with a

new part and perform a retraction/extension/

retraction of the RAT, in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin. Or

(B) Clean and lubricate the uplock

mechanism and its associated parts. Within

30 days following accomplishment of this

cleaning and lubrication, replace the uplock

mechanism with a new part and perform a

retraction/extension/retraction of the RAT.

(b) Initial accomplishment of the actions

required by paragraph (a) of this AD that

have been performed in accordance with

Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) 29–16,

Revision 01, dated January 10, 1996, is

considered acceptable for compliance with

the initial RAT extension test and an initial

visual inspection as required by paragraph (a)

of this AD. However, the first repetitive

inspection, as required by paragraph (a) of

this AD, must be performed within 30

months after that RAT extension test and

visual inspection were conducted, and

repeated thereafter at intervals not to exceed

30 months.

(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,

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.

(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 actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–29–0108,

dated April 1, 1996; Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–29–2076, dated April 1, 1996; or

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–29–6037,

dated April 1, 1996; as applicable. 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 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 95–163–

182 (B) R2, dated June 5, 1996.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

December 2, 1997.
55728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

20, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–28320 Filed 10–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–243–AD; Amendment

39–10175; AD 97–22–04]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 and 767 Series Airplanes

Equipped With General Electric (GE)

CF6–80C2 Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747

and 767 series airplanes. This action

requires revising the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

prohibit the use of certain fuels, and

either replacing the existing placard on

the door of the fueling control panel

with a new placard; or replacing all

dribble flow fuel nozzles (DFFN) with

standard fuel nozzles, which terminates

the requirements for a placard and AFM

revision. This amendment is prompted

by a report of an engine flameout during

certification testing due to the use of JP–

4 or Jet B fuel. The actions specified in

this AD are intended to prevent such

engine flameouts and consequent engine

shutdown.

DATES: Effective November 12, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of November

12, 1997.

Comments for inclusion in the rules

docket must be received on or before

December 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

243–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD 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; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Hormel, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2681;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

has received a report indicating that,

during certification testing of a General

Electric (GE) CF6–80C2 engine on

which dribble flow fuel nozzles (DFFN)

were installed, an engine flameout

occurred on a McDonnell Douglas

Model MD–11 series airplane operating

with JP–4 fuel. The engine flameout

occurred at 33,000 feet following a

throttle movement from ‘‘cruise thrust’’

to ‘‘idle.’’ The report indicated that the

engine restarted successfully.

Additionally, results of a GE transient

engine model revealed that the subject

engines, on which a low emissions

combustor and DFFN’s have been

installed, have zero transient margin for

flameout when operating with JP–4 fuel.

Boeing Model 747 and 767 series

airplanes equipped with GE Model

CF6–80C2 engines on which DFFN’s

have been installed, in combination

with the use of wide cut fuels (i.e., JP–

4 or Jet B fuel) may result in a singleor multi-engine flameout and

consequent engine shutdown.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747–

11A2052 (for Model 747 series

airplanes) and 767–11A0031 (for Model

767 series airplanes), both dated

September 11, 1997, which describe

procedures for removing the existing

placard on the door of the fueling

control panel and replacing it with a

new placard that prohibits the use of JP–

4 and Jet B fuels (wide cut fuels).

Additionally, these alert service

bulletins describe procedures for

removing the DFFN’s and replacing

them with standard fuel nozzles.

Accomplishment of this replacement on

the operator’s entire fleet eliminates the

need for a placard that prohibits the use

of wide cut fuels.

Explanation of the Requirements of the

Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on Boeing Model 747 and 767

series airplanes equipped with GE CF6–

80C2 engines that incorporate certain

DFFN’s, this AD is being issued to

prevent engine flameout and consequent

shutdown of the engine due to the use

of JP–4 or Jet B fuel. This AD requires

either replacement of the existing

placard on the door of the fueling

control panel with a new placard that

prohibits the use of JP–4 and Jet B fuels,

or the removal and replacement of the

DFFN’s with standard fuel nozzles.

Replacement of all DFFN’s with

standard fuel nozzles on the operator’s

entire fleet terminates the requirements

for a placard that prohibits the use of

wide cut fuels and the AFM revision.

These actions are required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

alert service bulletins described

previously.

This AD also requires a revision to the

Limitations Section of the FAAapproved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to prohibit the use of JP–4 and

Jet B fuels.

Interim Action

This is considered interim action

until final action is identified, at which

time the FAA may consider further

rulemaking.

Determination of Rule’s Effective Date

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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 under

the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.