7380 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A., CASA:

Docket 96–NM–144–AD.

Applicability: All Model CN–235, CN–235–

100, and CN–235–200 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 in-flight uncommanded

activation of the propeller brake system,

which could result in in-flight shutdown of

the engine, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 10 days after the effective date

of this AD, disable the brake control valve of

the propeller in accordance with Annex 1 of

CASA Communication COM 235–82,

Revision 3, dated January 31, 1995.

(b) Prior to restoring propeller brake

operation, replace the propeller brake control

unit having part number (P/N) HP1410100–

5 or HP1410100–7, with a new propeller

brake control unit having P/N HP1410100–9,

in accordance with CASA Service Bulletin

SB–235–61–01, dated October 11, 1994; or

CASA Service Bulletin SB–235–61–01M,

Revision 2 (for military airplanes), dated

January 25, 1996; as applicable.

Accomplishment of this replacement

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of paragraph (a) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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 February

11, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–3966 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–155–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 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 A300, A310, and A300–

600 series airplanes. This proposal

would require performing a ram air

turbine (RAT) extension test; removing

and disassembling the RAT lever

assembly; performing an inspection to

detect corrosion of the RAT lever

assembly, and replacement with a new

assembly, if necessary; and cleaning all

the parts of the RAT control shaft and

its bearing component parts. This

proposal is prompted by reports

indicating that the RAT did not extend

during ground testing, due to corrosion

in the uplock pin/shaft and the needle

bearing of the RAT. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct such

corrosion of the RAT, which could

result in failure of the RAT to deploy

and subsequent loss of emergency

hydraulic power to the flight controls in

the event that power is lost in both

engines.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

155–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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7381

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–155–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–155–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Gonorale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has

received reports indicating that the ram

air turbine (RAT) did not extend during

ground tests. Investigation revealed that

the non-extension of the RAT was due

to corrosion of the RAT control shaft

and its bearing needles between the

uplock unit and the lever connected to

the control linkage. Corrosion of the

RAT uplock pin/shaft and needle, if not

detected and corrected in a timely

manner, could result in failure of the

RAT to deploy and subsequent loss of

emergency hydraulic power to the flight

controls in the event that power is lost

in both engines.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A300–29–0108 (for Model A300 series

airplanes), Service Bulletin A310–29–

2076 (for Model A310 series airplanes),

and Service Bulletin A300–29–6037 (for

Model A300–600 series airplanes), all

dated dated April 1, 1996, which

describe procedures for the following:

1. Performing a RAT extension test

during ground testing;

2. Removing and disassembling the

RAT lever assembly (uplock assembly);

3. Performing a visual inspection to

detect corrosion of the RAT lever

assembly; and

4. Cleaning all the parts of the RAT

lever assembly and all its associated

parts.

The service bulletins also describe

procedures for replacing any corroded

parts with new parts. They also describe

procedures for cleaning and lubricating

corroded parts in lieu of replacement

with new parts, in situations where new

parts are not readily available.

The DGAC classified these service

bulletins as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directive, 95–163–

182(B)R2, dated June 5, 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

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

a RAT extension test during ground

testing; removal and disassembly of the

RAT lever assembly; a visual inspection

to detect corrosion of the RAT lever

assembly, and replacement of the

assembly with new parts, if necessary;

and cleaning of the lever assembly and

its associated parts. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletins

described previously.

Differences Between Proposed AD and

Referenced Service Bulletins

Operators should note that, although

the Airbus service bulletins describe

certain cleaning and lubrication

procedures of the RAT lever assembly

that can be accomplished in lieu of

replacement of corroded parts, this

proposed AD would not permit those

actions as an alternative to replacement.

The FAA finds that, to ensure an

adequate level of safety for the affected

fleet, corroded parts must be replaced

prior to further flight. The FAA has

determined that, in cases where known

unsafe conditions exist and where

actions to detect and correct those

unsafe conditions can be readily

accomplished, those actions must be

required.

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action until final action is identified, at

which time the FAA may consider

further rulemaking.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 80 Airbus

Model A300, A310, and A300–600

series airplanes of U.S. registry would

be affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 10 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed actions, and that the average

labor rate is $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 proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $48,000, or

$600 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
7382 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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–155–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300, A310, and

A300–600 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

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 detect and correct corrosion of the ram

air turbine (RAT) uplock pin/shaft and

needle that could result in failure of the RAT

to deploy and subsequent loss of emergency

hydraulic power to the flight controls in the

event that power is lost in both engines,

accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 30 months

total time-in-service, or within 3 months after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later: Accomplish the requirements of

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of

this AD in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–29–0108, dated April 1, 1996

(for Model A300 series airplanes); A310–29–

2076, dated April 1, 1996 (for Model A310

series airplanes); A300–29–6037, dated April

1, 1996 (for Model A300–600 series

airplanes); as applicable. Thereafter, repeat

these actions at intervals not to exceed 30

months.

(1) Perform a RAT extension test on the

ground, in accordance with the procedures

specified in the Maintenance Manual.

(2) Disassemble and remove the lever

assembly of the RAT and perform a visual

inspection of the lever assembly to detect

corrosion, in accordance with the applicable

service bulletin.

(i) If no corrosion is detected: Prior to

further flight, clean and lubricate the lever

assembly and its associated parts, reinstall

the assembly, and perform a retraction/

extension/retraction of the RAT, in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletin.

(ii) If any corrosion is detected in any part

of the lever assembly: Prior to further flight,

replace the lever assembly with a new part

and perform a retraction/extension/retraction

of the RAT, in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin.

(b) Initial accomplishment of the actions

required by paragraph (a) of this AD that

have been performed in accordance with

Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) 29–16,

Revision 01, dated January 10, 1996, is

considered acceptable for compliance with

the initial RAT extension test and an initial

visual inspection as required by paragraph (a)

of this AD. However, the first repetitive

inspection, as required by paragraph (a) of

this AD, must be performed within 30

months after that RAT extension test and

visual inspection were conducted, and

repeated thereafter at intervals not to exceed

30 months.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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 February

11, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–3965 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–138–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives;

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.

(CASA) Model CN–235 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 CASA Model CN–235 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

replacement of the guide hooks of the

cargo doors with new, improved guide

hooks. This proposal is prompted by

fatigue cracking found in the guide

hooks of the cargo door. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent such fatigue

cracking, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of the cargo door

and, consequently, lead to rapid

decompression of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

138–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

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.,

Getafe, Madrid, Spain. This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Dunn, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2799; 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