61704 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 9 Short

Brothers Model SD3–60 SHERPA and

SD3 SHERPA series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost $60 per airplane. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $2,700, or $300 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), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Short Brothers, PLC: Docket 97–NM–118–

AD.

Applicability: All Model SD3–60 SHERPA

and SD3 SHERPA 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

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 aluminum oxygen tubing from

bursting and releasing a high-pressure

oxygen flow into the passenger cabin, which

could result in a fire hazard during flight;

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 90 days after the effective date

of this AD, remove the aluminum oxygen

tubing pipe assembly and replace it with a

stainless steel tubing pipe assembly in

accordance with the Accomplishment

Instructions of Short Brothers Service

Bulletin SD3–60 SHERPA–35–1 or SD3

SHERPA–35–2, both dated April 8, 1997, as

applicable.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install an aluminum alloy

oxygen tubing pipe assembly, part number

SD3–71–20052–401, on any airplane.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, 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, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 13, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–30329 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–184–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, and –231 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 Model A320–111, –211,

and –231 series airplanes. This proposal

would require repetitive inspections for

cracking in the transition and pick-up

angles in the lower part of the center

fuselage area, and corrective action, if

necessary. This proposal would also

provide for an optional terminating

modification for the repetitive

inspection requirements. This proposal

is prompted by the issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct fatigue

cracking in the transition and pick-up

angles of the lower part of the center

fuselage, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of the wing-fuselage

support and fuselage pressure vessel.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

184–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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 61705

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:

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 96–NM–184–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.

96–NM–184–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,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A320–111, –211, and –231 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that,

during a full-scale fatigue test on a

Model A320 test article, cracking was

found on the transition and pick-up

angles between frames 35 and 36. Such

cracking is attributed to fatigue-related

stress as a result of fastener movement

during vibration and loading. Fatiguerelated cracking in the pick-up and

transition angles in the lower part of the

center fuselage, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the wing-fuselage support and fuselage

pressure vessel.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–53–1028, dated March 1, 1994,

which describes procedures for

performing repetitive visual inspections

of the transition angle between frames

35 and 36, just below left- and righthand stringer 30; and repetitive rotating

probe inspections of the fastener holes

of the left- and right-hand pick-up

angles.

For structure that is free of cracking,

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin

A320–53–1027, dated March 1, 1994;

Revision 1, dated September 5, 1994;

and Revision 2, dated June 8, 1995. The

service bulletin describes procedures for

modification of the center fuselage. The

modification involves the installation of

additional washers between the

transition angle and fasteners, and the

cold-expansion of the most fatiguesensitive fastener holes.

Accomplishment of this modification

would eliminate the need for the

repetitive inspections for structure that

was free of cracking.

The DGAC classified Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–53–1028 as mandatory

and issued French airworthiness

directive 95–097–065(B), dated May 24,

1995, in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France. The DGAC also approved

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1027,

Revision 2, dated June 8, 1995.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are 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 registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletins described

previously; except where cracking is

detected and it is 1.9 mm or greater in

length, in which case the repair would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

Differences Between the Proposal and

the Related French AD

The proposed AD would differ from

the parallel French airworthiness

directive in that the proposed AD would

not permit further flight with cracking

detected in the transition or pick-up

angles of the wing-fuselage support. The

FAA has determined that, due to safety

implications and consequences

associated with such cracking, the

subject transition and pick-up angles

that are found to be cracked must be

repaired prior to further flight.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 24 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 9 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed inspections at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

inspections proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $12,960, or

$540 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It would take approximately 10 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed modification, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $2,895 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the modification proposed by this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$83,880, or $3,495 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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,
61706 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 96–NM–184–AD.

Applicability: Model A320–111, –211, and

–231 series airplanes, manufacturer’s serial

numbers 002 through 008 inclusive, 010

through 014 inclusive, 016 through 078

inclusive, and 080 through 107 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 (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 detect and correct reduced structural

integrity of the wing-fuselage support and

fuselage pressure vessel resulting from

structural fatigue cracking in the transition

and pick-up angles, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total

landings, or within 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)

of this AD, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1028, dated March

1, 1994.

(1) Perform a visual inspection to detect

cracks of the transition angle, in accordance

with the service bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected during the visual

inspection required by paragraph (a)(1) of

this AD, accomplish either paragraph

(a)(1)(i)(A) or paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this

AD.

(A) Repeat the visual inspection thereafter

at intervals not to exceed 12,000 landings. Or

(B) Prior to further flight, modify the center

fuselage in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–53–1027, dated March 1,

1994; Revision 1, dated September 5, 1994;

or Revision 2, dated June 8, 1995.

Accomplishment of the modification

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of this AD.

(ii) If any crack is detected during the

visual inspection required by paragraph (a)(1)

of this AD, prior to further flight, replace the

transition angle with a new transition angle,

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1027, dated March 1, 1994;

Revision 1, dated September 5, 1994; or

Revision 2, dated June 8, 1995.

(2) Perform a rotating probe inspection to

detect cracks of the pick-up angle, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected during the

rotating probe inspection required by

paragraph (a)(2) of this AD, accomplish either

paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) or (a)(2)(i)(B) of this

AD.

(A) Repeat the visual and rotating probe

inspections thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 12,000 landings. Or

(B) Prior to further flight, modify the center

fuselage in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–53–1027, dated March 1,

1994; Revision 1, dated September 5, 1994;

or Revision 2, dated June 8, 1995.

Accomplishment of the modification

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this AD.

(ii) If any crack is detected and it is less

than 1.9 mm in length, prior to further flight,

accomplish the applicable corrective actions

specified in the service bulletin. For holes

that have not been modified in accordance

with the service bulletin, repeat the rotating

probe inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 12,000 landings.

(iii) If any crack is detected and it is 1.9

mm or greater in length, prior to further

flight, repair it in accordance with the

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116, 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, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

(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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 95–097–

065(B), dated May 24, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 13, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–30330 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–256–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Model CL–600–1A11 and CL–600–2A12

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

Bombardier Model CL–600–1A11 and

CL–600–2A12 series airplanes. This

proposal would require replacement of

the anti-noise filter on the standby and

auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel pump

assemblies with a new filter. This

proposal is prompted by issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent electrical arcing

between the internal wiring and casing

of the anti-noise filter on the standby