59310 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1A copy of FSIS’s ‘‘Guidelines for E. coli Testing

for Process Control verification in Cattle and Swine

Slaughter Establishments’’ is available for

inspection in the FSIS Docket Room.

(i) * * *

(ii) Sample collection. The

establishment must collect samples

from all chilled livestock carcasses,

except those boned before chilling (hotboned), which must be sampled after

the final wash. Samples must be

collected in the following manner: 1

(A) For cattle, establishments must

sponge or excise tissue from the flank,

brisket and rump, except for hide-on

calves, in which case establishments

must take samples by sponging from

inside the flank, inside the brisket, and

inside the rump.

(B) For sheep, goat, horse, mule, or

other equine carcasses, establishments

must sponge from the flank, brisket and

rump, except for hide-on carcasses, in

which case establishments must take

samples by sponging from inside the

flank, inside the brisket, and inside the

rump.

(C) For swine carcasses,

establishments must sponge or excise

tissue from the ham, belly and jowl

areas.

(iii) Sampling frequency. Slaughter

establishments, except very low volume

establishments as defined in paragraph

(a)(2)(v) of this section, must take

samples at a frequency proportional to

the volume of production at the

following rates:

(A) Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Horses,

Mules, and Other Equine: 1 test per 300

carcasses, but at a minimum one sample

each week of operation.

(B) Swine: 1 test per 1000 carcasses,

but at a minimum one sample each

week of operation.

* * * * *

(v) * * *

(A) Very low volume establishments

annually slaughter no more than 6,000

cattle, 6,000 sheep, 6,000 goats, 6,000

horses, mules, or other equine, 20,000

swine, or a combination of livestock not

exceeding 6,000 cattle and 20,000 total

of all livestock. * * *

* * * * *

PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS

INSPECTION REGULATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 381

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C.

451–470, 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.

Subpart K—Post Mortem Inspection;

Disposition of Carcasses and Parts

6. Section 381.94 would be amended

by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii), and the

first and second sentences of paragraph

(a)(2)(v)(A) as follows:

§ 381.94 Contamination with

microorganisms; process control

verification criteria and testing; pathogen

reduction standards.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) Sampling frequency. Slaughter

establishments, except very low volume

establishments as defined in paragraph

(a)(2)(v) of this section, must take

samples at a frequency proportional to

the establishment’s volume of

production at the following rates:

(A) Chickens: 1 sample per 22,000

carcasses, but at a minimum one sample

per each week of operation.

(B) Turkeys, Ducks, Geese, and

Guineas: 1 sample per 3,000 carcasses,

but at a minimum one sample each

week of operation.

* * * * *

(v) * * *

(A) Very low volume establishments

annually slaughter no more than

440,000 chickens or 60,000 turkeys,

60,000 duck, 60,000 geese, 60,000

guineas or a combination all types of

poultry not exceeding 60,000 turkeys

and 440,000 birds total. Very low

volume establishments slaughtering

turkeys, ducks, geese, or guineas in the

largest number must collect at least one

sample per week, starting the first full

week of operation after June 1 of each

year, and continue sampling at a

minimum of once each week the

establishment operates until June 1 of

the following year or until 13 samples

have been collected, whichever comes

first. * * *

* * * * *

Done at Washington, DC, on October 24,

1997.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–29027 Filed 10–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–79–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; American

Champion Aircraft Corporation 7, 8,

and 11 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to American

Champion Aircraft Corporation (ACAC)

7, 8, and 11 series airplanes, excluding

Model 8GCBC airplanes. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA)

previously proposed similar AD action

for the ACAC Model 8GCBC airplanes.

The proposed AD would require

installing inspection holes on the top

and bottom wing surfaces, repetitively

inspecting the front and rear wood spars

for damage, repairing or replacing any

damaged wood spar, and installing

inspection covers. Damage is defined as

cracks; compression cracks; longitudinal

cracks through the bolt holes or nail

holes; or loose or missing rib nails. The

proposed AD results from a review of

the service history of the affected

airplanes that incorporate wood wing

spars. The review was prompted by inflight wing structural failures on ACAC

Model 8GCBC airplanes, and revealed

several incidents where damage was

found on the front and rear wood spars

on the affected airplanes. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent possible

compression cracks and other damage in

the wood spar wing, which, if not

detected and corrected, could

eventually result in in-flight structural

failure of the wing with consequent loss

of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–CE–79–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

American Champion Aircraft

Corporation, P.O. Box 37, 32032

Washington Avenue, Highway D,

Rochester, Wisconsin 53167. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

William Rohder, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification

Office, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Des

Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone (847)

294–7697; facsimile (847) 294–7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 59311

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 that

summarizes 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. 97–CE–79–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, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 97–CE–79–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

AD 87–18–09, Amendment 39–5725,

currently requires inspecting (one-time)

the sides of the front and rear wood

spars for compression cracks on ACAC

Model 8GCBC airplanes, repairing or

replacing any wood spar with

compression cracks, and re-inspecting

immediately after any incident

involving wing damage. AD 87–18–09

was the result of three accidents

involving ACAC Model 8GCBC

airplanes where structural damage to

the wing caused by compression cracks

in a wood spar was considered to be a

primary factor of the accidents.

Wood compression cracks are failures

of wood fibers on a plane perpendicular

to the wood fiber longitudinal axis.

Repetitive high stress can initiate these

compression cracks on the top surface of

the wing spar that is adjacent to doubler

plate glue lines and rib nail holes. These

high stress conditions can occur during

crop dusting, banner and glider tow

operations, turbulence, and rough field

or float operations. Compression cracks

can also initiate if the wing contacts the

ground. Compression cracks can initiate

at either the top or bottom surface of the

spar depending on the loads (either

upward or downward) at impact.

In-flight structural failure of the wing

recently occurred on an ACAC Model

8GCBC airplane that was initially

inspected as required by AD 87–18–09.

A possible contributing factor of this

incident was an undetected

compression crack on the right wing

front spar.

Investigation of this accident and data

acquired from inspections of several

ACAC Model 8GCBC airplanes indicate

that wood spar compression cracks can

occur without previous wing damage.

The data indicates that detection of

compression crack initiation is unlikely

on the sides of the spar, unless the crack

is in an advanced state of propagation.

Based on this data, the FAA believes

that repetitive inspections are necessary.

The FAA recently issued an NPRM on

the Model 8GCBC airplanes that was

published in the Federal Register on

September 26, 1997 (62 FR 50527). This

NPRM proposes to supersede AD 87–

18–09, and, if issued as a final rule,

would require similar action to that

proposed in this document.

Reasons for the Proposed AD

The above-referenced incidents on the

ACAC Model 8GCBC airplanes

prompted the FAA to review the service

history of the other ACAC 8 series

airplanes, as well as the 7 and 11 series

airplanes. The FAA has record of eight

reports of accidents (five fatal) on ACAC

7 and 8 series airplanes, other than the

Model 8GCBC airplanes. Four of these

accidents are attributed to overstress,

two to wing failure due to previous

damage going undetected, one to an

overload condition with evidence of

wing panel failure prior to impact, and

one spar with an out-of-specification

wood spar grain slope. This review

revealed 16 reports of spar crack damage

(spar butt end and/or longitudinal

cracks), 6 reports of compression

cracked spars, and 13 reports of loose/

missing rib nails. These reports break

down as follows:

—Model 7AC (2,626 U.S. registered

airplanes): 12 reports of spar crack

damage, plus 2 reports of loose/

missing rib nails;

—Model 7BCM (253 U.S. registered

airplanes): 1 report of spar crack

damage;

—Model 7ECA (871 U.S. registered

airplanes): 1 report of a compression

cracked spar, plus 6 reports of loose/

missing rib nails;

—Model 7GCBC (829 U.S. registered

airplanes): 1 report of a compression

cracked spar;

—Model 7KCAB (482 U.S. registered

airplanes): 2 reports of spar crack

damage, 2 reports of compression

cracked spars, and 3 reports of loose/

missing rib nails; and

—Model 8KCAB (480 U.S. registered

airplanes): 1 report of spar crack

damage, 2 reports of compression

cracked spars, and 2 reports of loose/

missing rib nails.

The FAA believes that many cracked/

damaged spars are not reported because

general aviation operators (operating in

accordance with part 91 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 91))

are not required to submit service

difficulty reports.

Relevant Service Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

the technical contents of ACAC Service

Letter 406, dated March 28, 1994, and

ACAC Service Letter 417, Revision A,

dated October 2, 1997. ACAC Service

Letter 406, dated March 28, 1994,

includes procedures for conducting a

detailed visual inspection of both the

front and rear wood wing spars for

cracks; compression cracks; longitudinal

cracks through the bolt holes or nail

holes; and loose or missing rib nails

(referred to as damage hereafter). ACAC

Service Letter 417, Revision A, dated

October 2, 1997, includes procedures for

installing inspection holes and surface

covers and assuring that all applicable

lower surface drain holes are installed.

The FAA’s Determination

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents and accidents

described above, including the

referenced service information, the FAA

has determined that (1) the wing design

of all 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes

equipped with wood spars is similar

and is conducive to spar cracks/damage;

and (2) AD action should be taken to

prevent possible compression cracks

and other damage in the wood spar

wing, which, if not detected and

corrected, could eventually result in inflight structural failure of the wing with

consequent loss of the airplane.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other ACAC 7, 8, and 11

series airplanes (excluding the Model

8GCBC airplanes) of the same type

design, the FAA is proposing AD action.

The proposed AD would require

installing inspection holes on the top
59312 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and bottom wing surfaces, repetitively

inspecting the front and rear wood spars

for damage, repairing or replacing any

damaged wood spar, and installing

surface covers. Accomplishment of the

proposed actions would be as follows:

—Installations: in accordance with

ACAC Service Letter 417, Revision A,

dated October 2, 1997;

—Inspections: in accordance with

ACAC Service Letter 406, dated

March 28, 1994; and

—Spar Repair and Replacement, as

applicable: in accordance with

Advisory Circular (AC) 43–13–1A,

Acceptable Methods, Techniques and

Practices; or other data that the FAA

has approved for spar repair and

replacement.

Differences Between This Proposed AD

and ACAC Service Letter 406

ACAC Service Letter 406, dated

March 28, 1994, specifies the same

inspections as are proposed in this

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

The differences between the service

letter and NPRM are:

—the service letter specifies the

proposed action within the next 30

days or 10 flight hours and at each

100 hour/annual inspection

thereafter. The FAA has determined

that a more realistic and enforceable

compliance time would be to require:

1. The proposed initial inspection at the

first annual inspection that occurs 3 calendar

months or more after the effective date of the

AD or within 15 calendar months after the

effective date of the AD, whichever occurs

first; and

2. The proposed repetitive inspections

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12

calendar months or 500 hours time-in-service

(TIS), whichever occurs first;

and

—the service letter applies to all ACAC

7 and 8 series airplanes, whereas the

NPRM applies to ACAC 7, 8, and 11

series airplanes with similar design,

except for the Model 8GCBC

airplanes. The FAA previously

proposed similar AD action for the

ACAC Model 8GCBC airplanes,

Docket No. 97–CE–33–AD (62 FR

50527, September 26, 1997).

Compliance Time of the Proposed AD

The compliance time of the proposed

AD is presented in calendar time and

hours TIS. Although the unsafe

condition specified in the proposed AD

is a result of airplane operation,

operators of the affected airplanes

utilize their airplanes in different ways.

For example, an operator may utilize

his/her airplane 50 hours TIS in a year

while utilizing the aircraft in no or very

little crop dusting operations, banner

and glider tow operations, or rough field

or float operations. This airplane would

obviously have a lower crack

propagation rate than an airplane

operated 300 hours TIS a year in

frequent crop dusting operations,

banner and glider tow operations, or

rough field or float operations. However,

this airplane could have pre-existing

and undetected wood spar damage that

occurred during previous operations. In

this situation, the damage to the wood

spar would propagate at a level that

depends on the operational exposure of

the airplane and severity of the initial

wood spar damage.

To assure that compression cracks do

not go undetected in the wood spars of

the affected airplanes, the FAA has

determined that the following

compliance times should be used:

1. The proposed initial inspection at the

first annual inspection that occurs 3 calendar

months or more after the effective date of the

AD or within 15 calendar months after the

effective date of the AD, whichever occurs

first; and

2. The proposed repetitive inspections

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12

calendar months or 500 hours TIS, whichever

occurs first.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 6,440

airplanes in the U.S. registry would be

affected by the proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 6 workhours

(Installations: 5 workhours; Initial

Inspection: 1 workhour) per airplane to

accomplish the proposed action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $292 per airplane,

provided that each airplane would only

need 11 additional standard inspection

hole covers per wing bottom surface

(total of 22 new covers per airplane). If

the airplane would require the

installation of more inspection covers

(i.e., a result of previous non-factory

wing recover work), the cost could be

slightly higher. Based on these figures,

the total cost impact of the proposed AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$4,198,880 or $652 per airplane.

This cost figure is based on the

presumption that no affected airplane

owner/operator has accomplished the

installations or the initial inspection.

The FAA has no knowledge of any

owner/operator of the affected airplanes

that has already accomplished the

installations and initial inspection.

This cost figure also does not account

for repetitive inspections. The FAA has

no way of determining the number of

repetitive inspections each owner/

operator of the affected airplanes will

incur over the life of his/her airplane.

However, each proposed repetitive

inspection would cost substantially less

than the initial inspection because of

the cost of the initial proposed

inspection hole and cover installations

would not be repetitive. The inspection

covers allow easy access for the

inspection of the wood spars, and the

proposed compliance time would

enable the owners/operators of the

affected airplanes to accomplish the

repetitive inspections at regularly

scheduled annual inspections.

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 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) 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 has been placed 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 14

CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 59313

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

American Champion Aircraft Company:

Docket No. 97–CE–79–AD.

Applicability: The following airplane

models, all serial numbers, certificated in any

category, that are equipped with wood wing

spars:

7AC

7BCM (L–16A)

7DC

S7EC

7GC

7GCB

7HC

7KCAB

S11AC

7ACA

7CCM (L–16B)

S7DC

7ECA

7GCA

7GCBA

7JC

8KCAB

11BC

S7AC

S7CCM

7EC

7FC

7GCAA

7GCBC

7KC

11AC

S11BC

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, repaired, or reconfigured

in the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, repaired, or reconfigured 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 (e)

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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent possible compression

cracks and other damage in the wood

spar wing, which, if not detected and

corrected, could eventually result in inflight structural failure of the wing with

consequent loss of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) At the first annual inspection that

occurs 3 calendar months or more after

the effective date of this AD or within

the next 15 calendar months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, accomplish the following:

(1) Install inspection holes in the top

and bottom surface of each wing in

accordance with American Champion

Aircraft Corporation (ACAC) Service

Letter 417, Revision A, dated October 2,

1997. Assure that all drainage holes are

installed as depicted in this service

letter, and install drainage holes as

necessary.

(2) Inspect (detailed visual) both the

front and rear wood wing spars for

cracks; compression cracks; longitudinal

cracks through the bolt holes or nail

holes; and loose or missing rib nails

(referred to as damage hereafter).

Accomplish these inspections in

accordance with ACAC Service Letter

406, dated March 28, 1994.

(3) If any spar damage is found, prior

to further flight, accomplish the

following:

(i) Repair or replace the wood wing

spar in accordance with Advisory

Circular (AC) 43–13–1A, Acceptable

Methods, Techniques and Practices; or

other data that is approved by the FAA

for wing spar repair or replacement.

(ii) If the wing is recovered,

accomplish the installations required by

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, as

applicable.

(4) Install inspection hole covers on

the top and bottom surface of the wing

in accordance with ACAC Service Letter

417, Revision A, dated October 2, 1997.

(b) Within 12 calendar months or 500

hours TIS (whichever occurs first) after

accomplishing all actions required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, and thereafter

at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar

months or 500 hours TIS, whichever

occurs first, accomplish the inspection,

repair, replacement, and installation

required by paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), as

applicable; including its subparagraphs;

and (a)(4) of this AD.

(c) If, after the effective date of this

AD, any of the affected airplanes are

involved in an incident/accident that

involves wing contact damage (e.g.,

surface deformations such as abrasions,

gouges, scratches, or dents, etc.), prior to

further flight after that incident/

accident, accomplish the inspection,

repair, replacement, and installation

required by paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), as

applicable; including its subparagraphs;

and (a)(4) of this AD.

(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) An alternative method of

compliance or adjustment of the initial

or repetitive compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety

may be approved by the Manager,

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Des

Plaines, Illinois 60018. The request shall

be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Chicago ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Chicago ACO.

(f) All persons affected by this

directive may obtain copies of the

documents referred to herein upon

request to American Champion Aircraft

Corporation, P.O. Box 37, 32032

Washington Avenue, Highway D,

Rochester, Wisconsin 53167; or may

examine these documents at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

October 27, 1997.

Mary Ellen A. Schutt,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–28984 Filed 10–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 255

[Docket No. OST–97–3057; Notice No. 97–

11]

RIN 2105–AC67

Computer Reservations System (CRS)

Regulations (Part 255)

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department is proposing

to revise its rules governing airline

computer reservations systems (CRSs)

by changing the rules’ expiration date

from December 31, 1997, to March 31,

1999. If the Department does not change

the expiration date in the rules (14 CFR

Part 255), they will terminate on

December 31, 1997. The proposed

extension of the current rules will cause

those rules to remain in effect while the

Department carries out an extensive

reexamination of the need for CRS

regulations. The Department tentatively

believes that the current rules should be

maintained because they appear to be

necessary for promoting airline

competition and helping to ensure that

consumers and their travel agents can

obtain complete and accurate

information on airline services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before November 18, 1997.