Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 65233

the 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 temporary

preventive action that would be

provided by this AD action, it would

take approximately 1 work hour to

accomplish it, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would be provided by the manufacturer

at no cost to the operator. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

optional temporary preventive action

would be $60 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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

SAAB Aircraft AB: Docket 97–NM–145–AD.

Applicability: Model SAAB 2000 series

airplanes having serial numbers –002

through -023 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 (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, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the fitting lugs, due

to vibration caused by loose bushings in the

aileron actuation fittings, which could result

in reduced controllability of the airplane;

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 100 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, inspect the bushing

installations of the left-hand and right-hand

aileron actuation fittings to detect any

discrepancies, in accordance with Saab

Service Bulletin 2000–57–014, Revision 02,

dated February 11, 1997.

(1) If no discrepancy is found, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 300 flight hours until the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD have

been accomplished. Accomplishment of the

temporary preventive action specified in

paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin allows the

repetitive inspections to be accomplished at

intervals of 600 flight hours until the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD have

been accomplished.

(2) If any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, accomplish the requirements of

either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this

AD in accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) Except as specified in paragraph (c),

accomplish the installation required by

paragraph (b) of this AD. Accomplishment of

this installation constitutes terminating

action for the requirements of this AD. Or

(ii) Accomplish the temporary preventive

action specified in paragraph 2.E. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD at

intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours until

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD

have been accomplished.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of

this AD, within 3,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, install the new

staked bushings in the aileron actuation

fitting in accordance with Saab Service

Bulletin 2000–57–014, Revision 02, dated

February 11, 1997. Accomplishment of this

installation terminates the requirements of

this AD.

(c) If, during the accomplishment of the

installation required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) or

paragraph (b) of this AD, the diameter of the

small hole of the fitting lug is found to be

outside the limits specified in Saab Service

Bulletin 2000–57–014, Revision 02, dated

February 11, 1997, repair it in accordance

with a method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

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

person shall install on any airplane an

aileron having part number, 7357995–843

(left-hand) or 7357995–844 (right-hand),

unless it has been modified in accordance

with paragraph (b) of this AD.

(e) 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. 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.

(f) 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 Swedish airworthiness directive (SAD) 1–

102R1, dated November 8, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 5, 1997.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32424 Filed 12–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–47–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 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 747 series airplanes, that
65234 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

currently requires repetitive high

frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspections to detect cracking on all

surfaces of the upper recesses in certain

latch support fittings of the cargo

doorway, and replacement of cracked

fittings with new fittings. That AD also

provides for optional terminating action

for the repetitive inspections. This

proposal would require accomplishment

of the previously optional terminating

action. This proposal is prompted by

reports indicating that the repetitive

inspections required by the existing AD

may not detect cracked fittings in a

timely manner. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent the cargo door from opening

while the airplane is in flight, which

could result in rapid decompression of

the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

47–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:

Robert Breneman, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; telephone (425) 227–2776;

fax (425) 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 97–NM–47–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.

97–NM–47–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On February 12, 1993, the FAA issued

AD 93–02–16, amendment 39–8500 (58

FR 11190, February 24, 1993),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747

series airplanes, to require repetitive

high frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspections to detect cracking on all

surfaces of the upper recess in each

7079–T6 aluminum latch support fitting

of the cargo doorway, and replacement

of cracked fittings with new fittings.

That action was prompted by reports of

cracked fittings on two Model 747 series

airplanes. The requirements of that AD

are intended to prevent the cargo door

from opening while the airplane is in

flight, which could result in rapid

decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 93–02–16,

the FAA has received reports indicating

that the inspections required by that AD

may not adequately detect stress

corrosion cracking in 7079–T6

aluminum latch support fittings. Three

operators reported that, during HFEC

inspections, five cracked latch support

fittings were detected on four airplanes

that had accumulated between 11,555

and 18,252 flight cycles. That AD

requires that an operator conduct

repetitive HFEC inspections of latch

support fittings at intervals not to

exceed 18 months. One operator

reported that it performed an HFEC

inspection on the same airplane twice

during a 6-month period and that during

the first inspection, no cracks were

detected. However, during the second

inspection that was conducted 6 months

later, an 8-inch crack was detected in

one of the latch support fittings for the

aft door.

Findings indicate that cracks in these

fittings may occur at such an

unpredictable rate that repetitive HFEC

inspections are not sufficient to detect

cracking in a timely manner.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2377,

Revision 2, dated October 6, 1994,

which describes procedures for

repetitive HFEC inspections to detect

stress corrosion cracking on the surfaces

of the upper recess in each 7079–T6

aluminum latch support fitting, and

replacement of cracked fittings with

new 7075–T73 fittings that are not

susceptible to stress corrosion cracking.

Such replacement would eliminate the

need for repetitive HFEC inspections

and prevent the development and

propagation of stress corrosion cracking.

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 93–02–16 to continue to

require HFEC inspections of all 7079–T6

latch support fittings of the cargo

doorway, and replacement of cracked

fittings with new fittings. In addition,

this proposed AD would require the

eventual replacement of all 7079–T6

latch support fittings with new 7075–

T73 fittings, which would constitute

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirements.

These actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 200

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

115 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The inspections that are currently

required by AD 93–02–16, and retained

in this proposed AD, take approximately

31 work hours per airplane, per

inspection cycle, to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of currently required inspections on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$213,900, per inspection cycle, or

$1,860 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

The replacement, as proposed in this

new AD action, would take
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 65235

approximately 1,019 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $20,917 per airplane

($12,888 for all aft door fittings; $8,029

for all forward door fittings). Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed replacement of this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$9,436,555, or $82,057 per airplane.

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.

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 39–8500 (58 FR

11190, February 24, 1993), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Boeing: Docket 97–NM–47–AD. Supersedes

AD 93–02–16, Amendment 39–8500.

Applicability: Model 747 airplanes, line

numbers 1 through 200 inclusive; having

7079–T6 aluminum latch support fittings;

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 (d) 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 the cargo door from opening

while the airplane is in flight, which could

result in rapid decompression of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 93–

02–16

(a) Within 60 days after March 11, 1993

(the effective date of AD 93–02–16,

amendment 39–8500), perform a high

frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to

detect cracking on all surfaces of the upper

recess in each 7079–T6 aluminum latch

support fitting of the cargo doorway, in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

747–53A2377, Revision 1, dated January 28,

1993, or Revision 2, dated October 6, 1994.

After the effective date of this AD, only

Revision 2 of the service bulletin shall be

used.

Note 2: Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

53A2377, Revision 2, dated October 6, 1994,

references Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–

2200, Revision 1, dated November 16, 1979,

as an additional source of service information

for the replacement of these fittings.

(1) If any cracking is found on any fitting,

prior to further flight, replace the cracked

fitting with a new 7075–T73 aluminum latch

support fitting in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 747–53A2377, Revision 1,

dated January 28, 1993, or Revision 2, dated

October 6, 1994. After the effective date of

this AD, only Revision 2 of the service

bulletin shall be used.

(2) If no cracking is found on any fitting,

repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 18 months until the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are

accomplished.

New Requirements of This AD

(b) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, replace all 7079–T6

aluminum latch support fittings with new

7075–T73 fittings in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 747–53A2377, Revision 2,

dated October 6, 1994. Replacement of all

latch support fittings constitutes terminating

action for the inspection requirements of this

AD.

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

operator shall install any 7079–T6 aluminum

latch support fitting of the cargo door on any

airplane.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(e) 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 5, 1997.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32427 Filed 12–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1020

[Docket No. 97N–0427]

RIN 0910–ZA06

Diagnostic X-Ray Equipment

Performance Standard; Request for

Comments and Information

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is announcing its

intention to propose amendments to the

performance standard for diagnostic xray systems and their major

components. The agency is taking this

action to address changes in the

technology and use of radiographic and

fluoroscopic systems. The agency is

issuing this advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) in accordance

with its policy of early public disclosure

of rulemaking activities. The FDA is