63476 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Docket 97–NM–

114–AD.

Applicability: Model 328–100 series

airplanes equipped with Aerospace Restraint

Company (ARC) restraints having part

number (P/N) 1180002–403–100, part serial

number 0101 up to and including 0315

inclusive, 0328, and 0329; 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 prevent failure of the screw of the crew

seat belt buckle, which could result in injury

to the flightcrew during an emergency

landing, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 90 days after the effective date

of this AD, remove and replace the center

screw of the crew seat belt buckle in

accordance with Dornier Service Bulletin

SB–328–25–196, dated November 12, 1996.

Note 2: The Dornier service bulletin

references Aerospace Restraint Company

(ARC) Service Bulletin 1180002–25–01,

dated October 11, 1996, as an additional

source of service information for

accomplishment of the removal and

replacement.

(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 request through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(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 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German airworthiness directive 97–001,

dated January 16, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 21, 1997.

Stewart R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–31332 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–152–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, –212, –214, –231,

–232, and –233 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 all

Airbus Model A320–111, –211, –212,

–214, –231, –232, and –233 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive ultrasonic inspections to

detect fatigue cracking in the wing/

fuselage joint cruciform fittings, and

corrective actions, if necessary. 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 detect and correct fatigue

cracks on the wing/fuselage joint

cruciform fittings, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the wing/

fuselage.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

152–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

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63477

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–152–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–152–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 all Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, –212, –214, –231,

–232, and –233 series airplanes. The

DGAC advises that it received a report

indicating that, during full-scale fatigue

testing on a Model A320 test article,

fatigue cracks were found in the

structure at the wing/fuselage joint area

cruciform fitting. The cracking occurred

after 104,720 and 116,536 simulated

flights. This condition, if not detected

and corrected in a timely manner, could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the wing/fuselage.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–57–1051, Revision 01, dated

March 21, 1996, which describes

procedures for repetitive ultrasonic

inspections to detect fatigue cracking in

the wing/fuselage joint cruciform

fittings, and corrective action, if

necessary. The DGAC classified this

service bulletin as mandatory and

issued French airworthiness directive

96–299–094(B), dated December 18,

1996, in order to assure the

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in France and is 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 actions specified in

the service bulletin described

previously.

Differences Between the Proposal and

Relevant Service Information

Operators should note that, unlike the

procedures described in the referenced

service bulletin, this proposed AD

would not permit further flight with

cracking detected in the wing/fuselage

joint cruciform fittings. The FAA has

determined that, due to the safety

implications and consequences

associated with such cracking, all

fittings that are found to be cracked

must be repaired prior to further flight.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 132 of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take

approximately 8 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the inspection

proposed by this AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $63,360, or $480 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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 97–NM–152–AD.

Applicability: Model A320–111, –211,

–212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 series

airplanes, all serial numbers, 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 (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.
63478 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct fatigue cracks on the

wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings, which

could result in reduced structural integrity of

the wing/fuselage, accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 total

landings, or within 60 days after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect

fatigue cracking in the wing/fuselage joint

cruciform fittings, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1051, Revision 01,

dated March 21, 1996.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 20,000 landings.

(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further

flight, repair it in accordance with the service

bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at

the times specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or

(a)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

(i) If the crack that was detected and

repaired was greater than 2.5 mm: Repeat the

inspection prior to the accumulation of

32,000 landings since accomplishment of the

repair; and thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 32,000 landings.

(ii) If the crack that was detected and

repaired was less than or equal to 2.5 mm:

Repeat the inspection prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings since

accomplishment of the repair; and thereafter

at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.

(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 request 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.

(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 96–299–

094(B), dated December 18, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 21, 1997.

Stewart R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–31333 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

22 CFR Parts 22, 51, and 53

[Public Notice 2653]

Schedule of Fees for Consular

Services, Department of State and

Overseas Embassies and Consulates

AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs,

State Department.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule sets forth

the fees for consular services that are

proposed to take effect on February 1,

1998, and makes appropriate

implementing and other related changes

in affected portions of title 22 of the

Code of Federal Regulations.

Specifically, the rule makes changes in

the Schedule of Fees for Consular

Services (‘‘Schedule of Fees’’ or

‘‘Schedule’’) published in 22 CFR

section 22.1 and makes technical

changes to 22 CFR Part 51 (concerning

passport fees) and 22 CFR Part 53. The

changes to the Schedule of Fees include

adjustments to existing fees and a new

processing fee for diversity visa

applicants (see 22 CFR 42.33(i)), for

which the proposed rule was published

in the Federal Register on June 16,

1997. The primary objective of the

proposed adjustments to the Schedule

of Fees is to ensure that the Department

recovers the costs of consular services

through user fees to the maximum

extent appropriate and permitted by

law. As a result of new data on the cost

of services, the passport fee is being

lowered while most other fees are being

increased. In addition, the proposed

Schedule of Fees is being restructured

and streamlined. Fees for antiquated

services no longer performed are being

removed and fees for other services are

being consolidated or more

appropriately located, making the

proposed Schedule easier to read and

understand. Consular services that will

be performed for no fee are being added

to the Schedule to facilitate tracking the

costs of these services and to inform the

public of all significant consular

services provided by the Department.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before December 31,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments to: Office of

the Executive Director, Bureau of

Consular Affairs, Room 4820A,

Department of State, Washington, DC

20520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sally Light, Office of the Executive

Director, Bureau of Consular Affairs,

telephone (202) 647–1148; telefax (202)

647–3677.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The majority of the Department of

State’s consular fees are established

pursuant to the general user charges

statute, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and/or 22 U.S.C.

4219, which, as implemented through

Executive Order 10718 of June 27, 1957,

authorizes the Secretary of State to

establish fees to be charged for official

services by embassies and consulates.

Fees established under these authorities

include fees for immigrant visas, for

expedited passport processing, for

fingerprints and FBI name checks, and

for overseas consular services. In

addition, a number of statutes address

specific fees: Passport issuance fees are

authorized by 22 U.S.C. 214, as are fees

for the execution of passport

applications. Section 636 of the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–

208, 110 Stat. 3009–703–704 (Sept. 30,

1996), authorizes establishment of a

diversity visa application fee to recover

the full costs of the visa lottery

conducted pursuant to Sections 203 and

222 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (‘‘INA’’), 8 U.S.C. 1153, 1202. (The

Department published a proposed rule

establishing that fee on June 16, 1997.)

Nonimmigrant visa reciprocity fees are

authorized pursuant to Section 281 of

the INA , 8 U.S.C. 1351. The

establishment of a nonimmigrant visa

processing fee for machine readable

visas (commonly known as the ‘‘MRV

fee’’) notwithstanding Section 281 of the

INA is authorized by Section 140(a) of

the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,

Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L.

103–236, 108 Stat. 399 (April 30, 1994),

as amended. Certain persons are

exempted by law from payment of

specific fees. (These statutory

exemptions are noted in the fee

schedule.) Various statutes also permit

the Department to retain some of the

consular fees it collects. These are, at

present, the MRV fee, the passport

expedite fee, the fingerprint fee, and the

diversity visa lottery fee.

With the exception of nonimmigrant

visa reciprocity fees, which are

established based on the practices of

other countries, all consular fees are

established on a basis of cost recovery

and in a manner consistent with general

user charges principles, regardless of the

specific statutory authority under which

they are promulgated. The Department

of State is required to review consular

fees periodically to determine the

appropriateness of each fee in light of