Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6499

PART 1496—PROCUREMENT OF

PROCESSED AGRICULTURAL

COMMODITIES FOR DONATION

UNDER TITLE II, PUB. L. 480

1. The authority citation for part 1496

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1721–1726a; 1731–

1736g–2; 46 U.S.C. App. 1241(b), and 1241(f).

2. In § 1496.5, paragraphs (b)(1) and

(f) are proposed to be revised to read as

follows:

§ 1496.5 Consideration of bids.

* * * * *

(b)(1) Availability of ocean service.

Prior to receipt of offers from

commodity suppliers, CCC will review

ocean freight information from available

sources including but not limited to,

trade journal newspapers, port

publications, steamship publications in

order to determine the availability of

appropriate ocean service.

* * * * *

(f) Great Lakes ports. Commodities

offered for delivery f.a.s. vessel Great

Lakes port range that represent the

overall (foreign and U.S. flag) lowest

landed cost will be awarded on that

basis and will not be evaluated on a

lowest landed cost U.S.-flag basis unless

CCC determines that 25 percent of the

total annual tonnage of bagged,

processed or fortified commodities

furnished under Title II of Public Law

480 has been, or will be, transported

from the Great Lakes port range during

that fiscal year.

Signed at Washington, DC, on February 3,

1997.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Executive Vice President,Commodity

Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–3370 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 121

Small Business Size Standards;

Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to waive the

nonmanufacturer rule for power circuit

breakers, disconnect switches, current

and potential transformers,

autotransformer, surge arresters.

SUMMARY: The Small Business

Administration (SBA) is considering

granting a waiver of the

Nonmanufacturer Rule for Power Circuit

Breakers, Disconnect Switches, Current

and Potential Transformers,

Autotransformer, Surge Arresters. The

basis for a waiver of the

Nonmanufacturer Rule for these

products is that there are no small

business manufacturers or processors

available to supply these products to the

Federal Government. The effect of a

waiver would be to allow an otherwise

qualified Nonmanufacturer to supply

other than the product of a domestic

small business manufacturer or

processor on a Federal contract set aside

for small businesses or awarded through

the SBA 8(a) Program. The purpose of

this document is to solicit comments

and potential source information from

interested parties.

DATES: Comments and sources must be

submitted on or before February 18,

1997.

ADDRESSES: David Wm. Loines,

Procurement Analyst, U.S. Small

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street

S.W., Washington, DC 20416, Tel: (202)

205–6475.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Wm. Loines, Procurement

Analyst, (202) 205–6475, FAX (202)

205–7324.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public law

100–656, enacted on November 15,

1988, incorporated into the Small

Business Act the previously existing

regulation that recipients of Federal

contracts set-aside for small businesses

or the SBA 8(a) Program procurement

must provide the product of a small

business manufacturer or processor, if

the recipient is other than the actual

manufacturer or processor. This

requirement is commonly referred to as

the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA

regulations imposing this requirement

are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section

303(h) of the law provides for waiver of

this requirement by SBA for any ‘‘class

of products’’ for which there are no

small business manufacturers or

processors in the Federal market. To be

considered available to participate in

the Federal market on these classes of

products, a small business manufacturer

must have submitted a proposal for a

contract solicitation or received a

contract from the Federal Government

within the last 24 months. The SBA

defines ‘‘class of products’’ based on

two coding systems. The first is the

Office of Management and Budget

Standard Industrial Classification

Manual (SIC). The second is the Product

and Service Code (PSC) established by

the Federal Procurement Data System.

The Small Business Administration is

currently processing a request for a

waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for

Power Circuit Breakers (SIC 3613, PSC

5925), Disconnect Switches (SIC 3613,

PSC 5930), Current and Potential

Transformers (SIC 3612, PSC 5950),

Autotransformer (SIC 3612, PSC 5950),

Surge Arresters (SIC 3643, PSC 5920),

and invites the public to comment or

provide information on potential small

business manufacturers for these

products.

In an effort to identify potential small

business manufacturers, the SBA has

searched the Procurement Automated

Source System (PASS) and Thomas

Register, and the SBA will publish a

notice in the Commerce Business Daily.

The public is invited to comment or

provide source information to SBA on

the proposed waiver of the

Nonmanufacturer Rule for these classes

of products.

Dated: February 6, 1997.

Judith A. Roussel,

Associate Administrator for Government

Contracting.

[FR Doc. 97–3457 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–12–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 to

revise an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, that

currently requires repetitive inspections

of the access doors to the midspar/

spring beam fuse pins on all engine

pylons to detect cracks on the external

surface; repetitive inspections of each

midspar/spring beam fuse pin to detect

if it protrudes beyond its mating nut by

a specified distance; and repair of any

discrepancy found. The actions

specified by that AD are intended to

prevent migration of this fuse pin,

which, if not detected and corrected in

a timely manner, could result in failure

of the engine pylon and consequent

separation of the engine from the wing.

This new action would increase the

intervals between inspections of the

access doors and each midspar/spring

beam fuse pin, and consequently

decrease the frequency of inspections.

This proposal is prompted by new data

provided the manufacturer indicating
6500 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

that the reported migration of the fuse

pin was apparently the result of an

incorrectly installed nut.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

12–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:

Tamara L. Dow, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2771; fax (206) 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–12–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–12–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On December 23, 1996, the FAA

issued AD 96–26–52, amendment 39–

9868 (62 FR 302, January 3, 1997),

which is applicable to certain Boeing

Model 747 series airplanes. It requires

repetitive detailed visual inspections of

the access doors to the midspar/spring

beam fuse pins on all engine pylons to

detect cracks on the external surface,

and repair, if necessary. In addition, the

AD requires repetitive detailed visual

inspections of each midspar/spring

beam fuse pin to detect if it protrudes

beyond its mating nut by a specified

distance, and repair, if necessary.

That action was prompted by a report

indicating that a fuse pin had migrated

on an inboard spring beam fitting on the

Number 1 engine pylon of a Boeing

Model 747–400 airplane.

The requirements of that AD are

intended to prevent migration of this

fuse pin, which, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could

result in failure of the engine pylon and

consequent separation of the engine

from the wing.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Subsequent to the issuance of that

AD, the manufacturer conducted an

additional inspection and analysis of

the fuse pin (and its mated self-locking

nut) whose migration had been reported

to the FAA, and which was pertinent to

the incident that prompted the issuance

of AD 96–26–52.

The manufacturer reports that,

normally, when a self-locking nut is

correctly installed, the last 2 to 3

threads of the nut will show signs of

this installation. However, according to

the data gathered from the recent

inspection, no such signs were found

associated with the nut that was used on

the migrant fuse pin. Based on that

observation and further testing, the

manufacturer has concluded that the

self-locking nut was incorrectly

installed on the fuse pin that was the

subject of the reported incident. The

migration of that fuse pin was

apparently attributed to the incorrect

installation of its mating nut, and not to

some other phenomenon.

FAA’s Conclusions

The new information presented the by

manufacturer have led the FAA to

reconsider the current inspection

requirements of AD 96–26–52. Based on

these new data, as well as the fact that

there have been no reported findings of

discrepancies associated with the fuse

pins as a result of the inspections

required by AD 96–26–52, the FAA

finds that the repetitive inspection

intervals that are currently required by

that AD may be unnecessarily

conservative.

AD 96–26–52 currently requires that

the inspections be conducted at

intervals not to exceed 150 landings or

1,000 hours time-in-service, whichever

occurs first. However, the FAA has

determined that the repetitive interval

can be extended to 1,000 landings or 18

months, whichever occurs first, without

compromising safety. This interval

would closely parallel regularly

scheduled maintenance inspections

(‘‘C’’ checks) for the majority of affected

operators. Operators then will be able to

conduct the inspections when the

airplanes are located at a main base,

where special equipment and trained

personnel would be readily available, if

necessary.

The FAA finds that inspections

conducted at the revised interval will

provide an acceptable level of safety and

will ensure that any discrepancies are

found and detected in a timely manner.

Further, this revised schedule will

provide an effective program of regular

inspections during the period prior to

accomplishing the modifications of the

nacelle strut and wing structure

required by AD 95–13–05 [amendment

39–9285 (60 FR 33333, June 28, 1995),

as corrected at 60 FR 35452, July 7,

1995] and AD 95–13–06 [amendment

39–9286 (60 FR 33338, June 28, 1995),

as corrected at 60 FR 37500, July 20,

1995]. Once those modifications are

accomplished, the inspections required

by this AD are no longer necessary.

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 action would

revise AD 96–26–52. It would continue

to require:

1. repetitive inspections of the access

doors to the midspar/spring beam fuse

pins on all engine pylons to detect

cracks on the external surface;

2. repetitive inspections of each

midspar/spring beam fuse pin to detect

if it protrudes beyond its mating nut by

a specified distance; and

3. repair of any discrepancy found.

However, this proposed action would

revise the AD by increasing the intervals

between the repetitive inspections to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6501

1,000 landings or 18 months, whichever

occurs first.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 459 Boeing

Model 747 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet,

and the FAA estimates that 44 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 4 work

hours per airplane to accomplish each

cycle of proposed inspections, at an

average rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $10,560 per inspection

cycle, or $240 per airplane, per

inspection cycle. (By increasing the

intervals between inspections, this

proposed AD would result in

inspections being conducted less

frequently than is now required.)

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

removing amendment 39–9868 (62 FR

302, January 3, 1997), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

BOEING: Docket 97–NM–12–AD. Revises

AD 96–26–52, amendment 39–9868.

Applicability: Model 747 series airplanes

having line numbers 1 through 1046,

inclusive; certificated in any category; that

meet all of the following criteria:

• Equipped with Pratt & Whitney Model

PW4000 series engines, or General Electric

Model CF6–80C2 series engines, or Rolls

Royce Model RB211 series engines;

• On which fuse pins having part numbers

310U2301–101, –116, –117, or –120 (‘‘third

generation’’ fuse pins) are installed at the

midspar/spring beam fittings of the engine

pylon; and

• On which the modification of the nacelle

strut and wing structure in accordance with

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2156

or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

54A2157, as applicable, has not been

accomplished.

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 failure of the engine pylon and

consequent separation of the engine from the

wing, due to migration of the fuse pins

installed at the midspar/spring beam fittings

of the pylon, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 15 days after January 8, 1997

[the effective date of AD 96–26–52,

amendment 39–9868), accomplish the

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

of this AD.

(1) Perform a detailed visual inspection of

the access doors to each midspar/spring

beam fuse pin on each engine pylon to detect

cracks on the external surface of the doors.

(i) If no cracking is detected during the

inspection, repeat that inspection at intervals

not to exceed 1,000 landings or 18 months,

whichever occurs first.

(ii) If any cracking is detected during the

inspection, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals

not to exceed 1,000 landings or 18 months,

whichever occurs first.

(2) Gain access through the aft fairing doors

of each engine pylon to each midspar/spring

beam fuse pin and its mating, self-locking

nut, and perform a detailed visual inspection

of each fuse pin to verify that at least one

thread of the fuse pin protrudes beyond its

mating, self-locking nut.

(i) If no discrepancy is detected during the

inspection, repeat that inspection at intervals

not to exceed 1,000 landings or 18 months,

whichever occurs first.

(ii) If the inspection reveals that at least

one thread does not protrude beyond its

mating, self-locking nut, prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Thereafter,

repeat the inspection at intervals not to

exceed 1,000 landings or 18 months,

whichever occurs first.

(b) Accomplishment of the modification of

the nacelle strut and wing structure in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–54A2156, Revision 2, dated

December 21, 1995, or earlier revisions (for

airplanes equipped with General Electric

Model CF6–80C2 series engines, or Pratt &

Whitney PW4000 series engines); or Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2157,

Revision 2, dated November 14, 1996, or

earlier revisions (for airplanes with Rolls

Royce Model RB211 series engines); as

applicable; constitutes terminating action for

the repetitive detailed visual inspections

required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of

this AD.

(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, Seattle

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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(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.
6502 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

5, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–3433 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–252–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 and A321 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 all Airbus

Model A320 series airplanes, that

currently requires revising the

Limitations Section of the FAAapproved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to instruct the flight crew to

maintain a flap setting of ‘‘Configuration

Full’’ (CONF FULL) during landing.

That AD was prompted by a report of

severe control difficulties which

occurred on approach with the flaps

locked in CONF FULL and the landing

gear down. This action would add a

requirement for installation of a new,

improved flight warning computer

(FWC), which, when accomplished,

would constitute terminating action for

the AFM limitation. This action also

would revise the applicability of the

existing AD to include additional

airplanes that are subject to the

addressed unsafe condition. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent reduced

controllability of the airplane during

approach when the flaps are locked in

CONF FULL.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM–

252-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:

Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2589; fax (206) 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–252-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–252–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On September 15, 1994, the FAA

issued AD 94–20–02, amendment 39–

9030 (59 FR 48563, September 22,

1994), applicable to all Airbus Model

A320 series airplanes, to require

revising the Limitations Section of the

FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to advise the flight crew to

maintain ‘‘Configuration Full’’ (CONF

FULL) during landing approaches. That

action was prompted by a report of

severe control difficulties which

occurred on approach with the flaps

locked in CONF FULL and the landing

gear down. The requirements of that AD

are intended to prevent severely

reduced controllability of the airplane

during approach.

In the preamble to AD 94–20–02, the

FAA indicated that the actions required

by that AD were considered ‘‘interim

action’’ and that further rulemaking

action was being considered. The FAA

now has determined that further

rulemaking is indeed necessary, and

this proposed AD follows from that

determination.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 94–20–02,

the FAA has determined that Airbus

Model A321 series airplanes may be

subject to the same unsafe condition

addressed by AD 94–20–02. Since the

FWC installed on those airplanes is

similar in design to those installed on

Model A320 series airplanes, the same

problems encountered on the Model

A320 could potentially occur on the

Model A321 as well.

Additionally, since issuance of AD

94–20–02, Airbus has developed an

improved flight warning computer

(FWC) that positively addresses the

control difficulties addressed by AD 94–

20–02. Installation of the FWC will

ensure adequate controllability of the

airplane during approach with the flaps

locked in CONF FULL and the landing

gear down.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–31–1080, Revision 01, dated July

12, 1996, which describes procedures

for installation of a new, improved FWC

that defines a new standard common to

Airbus Model A320 and A321 series

airplanes. Among other actions, the

service bulletin describes modifications

that correct certain FWC parts and that

implement predictive windshear

function capability. The Direction

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC),

which is the airworthiness authority for

France, classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 96–079–079(B),

dated April 10, 1996, in order to assure

the continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.

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