Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7727

regarding an initial and final regulatory

flexibility analysis are inapplicable.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 360

Savings associations.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 360 of chapter III of title

12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 360—RESOLUTION AND

RECEIVERSHIP RULES

1. The authority citation for part 360

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11),

1821(e)(8)(D)(i), 1823(c)(4); Sec. 401(h), Pub.

L. 101–73, 103 Stat. 357.

2. Section 360.1 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 360.1 Least-cost resolution.

* * * * *

(b) Purchase and assumption

transactions. Subject to the requirement

of section 13(c)(4)(A) of the FDI Act (12

U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(A)), paragraph (a) of

this section shall not be construed as

prohibiting the FDIC from allowing any

person who acquires any assets or

assumes any liabilities of any insured

depository institution, for which the

FDIC has been appointed conservator or

receiver, to acquire uninsured deposit

liabilities of such institution as long as

the applicable insurance fund does not

incur any loss with respect to such

uninsured deposit liabilities in an

amount greater than the loss which

would have been incurred with respect

to such liabilities if the institution had

been liquidated.

§ 360.2 [Removed and reserved]

3. Section 360.2 is removed and

reserved.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 4th day of

February, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Jerry L. Langley,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4019 Filed 2–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–106–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Airbus Model A320 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

an initial inspection of fastener holes on

certain outer frames of the fuselage to

detect fatigue cracking, and

modification of this area by cold

expanding these holes and installing

oversized fasteners. This proposal is

prompted by a report from the

manufacturer indicating that, during

full-scale fatigue testing of the test

article, fatigue cracking was detected in

the area where the center fuselage joins

the wing. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

fatigue cracking and consequent

reduced structural integrity of this area,

which could lead to rapid

depressurization of the fuselage.

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–

106–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: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2797; 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–106–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–106–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,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A320 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that it has received a report from

the manufacturer indicating that fatigue

cracks were detected during full-scale

fatigue testing of the test article after

90,001 simulated flights. These cracks

were found in fastener holes in the

flange caps of outer right frame 40 and

outer left frame 41, adjacent to Stringer

23; this is the area where the center

fuselage joins the wing. This condition,

if not prevented, consequently could

reduce the structural integrity of this

area, and lead to rapid decompression of

the fuselage.

Explanation of Related and Relevant

Service Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–53–1026, dated August 5, 1994,

which describes procedures for

conducting repetitive eddy current

rotating probe inspections of fastener

holes on certain outer frames of the

fuselage to detect fatigue cracking and

repair, if necessary. These holes are

located on the forward and aft faces of

the flange caps on outer left and right

frames 37 through 41, adjacent to

Stringer 23; this is the area where the

center fuselage joins the wing.
7728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Airbus also has issued Service

Bulletin A320–53–1025, Revision 1,

dated November 24, 1994, which

describes procedures for conducting an

initial eddy current rotation probe

inspection of these fastener holes to

detect fatigue cracking, and for

modification of this area by cold

expanding certain holes and installing

oversized fasteners. This modification,

which would improve the resistance of

this area to fatigue cracking, would

eliminate the need for repetitive eddy

current inspections of this area.

The DGAC classified Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–53–1026 as mandatory

and issued French airworthiness

directive (CN) 95–101–69(B), dated May

24, 1995, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France. The DGAC

classified Airbus Service Bulletin A320–

53–1025 as ‘‘recommended,’’ but

indicated in CN 95–101–69(B) that

accomplishment of this service bulletin

would terminate the repetitive eddy

current inspections required by that

C/N.

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

an initial eddy current rotation probe

inspection to detect fatigue cracking in

certain fastener holes in the area where

the center fuselage joins the wing, and

a modification to improve the resistance

of this area to fatigue cracking. The

modification entails the cold expansion

of certain fastener holes and the

installation of oversized fasteners in

these holes. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the Airbus service

bulletins described previously.

Differences Between the Proposed Rule

and the French CN

Under the FAA’s proposed AD,

operators would be required to modify

the area where the center fuselage joins

the wing by cold expanding certain

fastener holes and installing oversized

fasteners in these holes. The DGAC has

not mandated this modification, but

instead, has mandated repetitive

inspections of the area.

The adequacy of inspections needed

to maintain the safety of the transport

airplane fleet, coupled with a better

understanding of the human factors

associated with numerous repetitive

inspections, has caused the FAA to

place less emphasis on repetitive

inspections, and more emphasis on

design improvements and material

replacement. Thus, the FAA has

decided to require, whenever

practicable, modifications necessary to

remove the source of the problem

addressed. The modification

requirement of this proposed AD is in

consonance with that decision.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 24 Airbus

Model A320 series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 25 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed actions, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Required

parts would cost approximately $557

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $49,368, or

$2,057 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 96–NM–106–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes

as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–

1026, dated August 5, 1994; on which

modifications 21281P1495 and 21680P1818

have not been installed; 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 fatigue cracking in the area

where the center fuselage joins the wing,

which could reduce the structural integrity of

this area and consequently result in rapid

decompression of the fuselage, accomplish

the following:

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

landings, or within 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7729

later, perform an eddy current rotating probe

inspection to detect fatigue cracking in the

fastener holes of the outer frame flanges of

left and right fuselage frames 37 through 41,

adjacent to Stringer 23, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1026,

dated August 5, 1994.

Note 2: Prior to the effective date of this

AD, accomplishment of any modification in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1025, dated August 5, 1994, is

considered acceptable for compliance with

the modification requirements of paragraphs

(b), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2) and (d) of this AD.

(b) If the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD detects no cracking in any hole:

Prior to the accumulation of 6,000 landings

after this inspection, modify each hole in

accordance with Paragraph 2.B.(5) of Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1025, Revision 1,

dated November 24, 1994. Thereafter, no

further action is required by this AD.

(c) If the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD detects any cracking in no more

than one hole per frame cap, accomplish the

requirements of paragraph (c) (1) and (c)(2)

of this AD:

(1) Prior to further flight, repair this

cracked hole and conduct another rotating

probe inspection of this hole to detect

cracking, in accordance with Paragraph

2.B.(6) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–

1025, Revision 1, dated November 24, 1994.

(i) If no cracking of this repaired hole is

detected: Prior to further flight, modify this

hole in accordance with Paragraph 2.B.(6)(c)

of this service bulletin. Thereafter, no further

action with regard to this hole is required by

this AD.

(ii) If any cracking of this repaired hole is

detected: Prior to further flight, repair this

hole in a manner approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Thereafter,

no further action with regard to this hole is

required by this AD.

(2) Prior to the accumulation of 6,000

landings after the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD; modify all other

holes in accordance with Paragraph 2.B.(5) of

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1025,

Revision 1, dated November 24, 1994.

Thereafter, no further action is required by

this AD with respect to these holes.

(d) If the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD detects any cracking in more

than one hole per frame cap, or if this

inspection detects any cracking in any frame:

Prior to further flight, repair the discrepant

area in a manner approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113; and

modify all other holes in accordance with

Paragraph 2.B.(5) of Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1025, Revision 1, dated November

24, 1994. Thereafter, no further action is

required by 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113.

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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

12, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4101 Filed 2–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–222–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 727 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking that

proposed a new airworthiness directive

(AD), applicable to all Boeing Model

727 series airplanes. That action would

have required inspections to detect

loose attach fitting bolts of the door

actuator of the main landing gear (MLG),

inspections to determine whether

serrations are fully mated, and various

follow-on corrective actions. It also

would have provided operators the

option of terminating all of the

requirements of the AD either by

replacing the aluminum rib fitting with

a new steel rib fitting, or by modifying

the rib fitting assembly and performing

various follow-on actions. The

requirements of that proposed AD were

intended to prevent an airplane from

landing with one MLG partially

extended. Since the issuance of the

NPRM, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has issued

separate rulemaking to require these

same actions. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Walter Sippel, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; telephone (206) 227–2774;

fax (206) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

add a new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Boeing Model 727

series airplanes, was published in the

Federal Register as a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 1, 1996

(61 FR 14269). The NPRM would have

revised AD 93–01–14, amendment 39–

8468 (58 FR 5574, January 22, 1993). It

would have continued to require the

actions that were originally mandated

by AD 93–01–14, including: inspections

to detect loose attach fitting bolts of the

door actuator of the main landing gear

(MLG), inspections to determine

whether serrations are fully mated, and

various follow-on corrective actions.

The NPRM would have added the

option of terminating all of the

requirements of the AD either by

replacing the aluminum rib fitting with

a new steel rib fitting, or by modifying

the rib fitting assembly and performing

various follow-on actions.

That action was originally prompted

by reports of loose attach fitting bolts of

the door actuator of the MLG. The

requirements of the proposed AD were

intended to prevent an airplane from

landing with one MLG partially

extended.

Actions that Occurred Since the NPRM

Was Issued

Since the issuance of that NPRM, the

FAA has issued AD 97–02–09,

amendment 39–9894 (62 FR 3988,

January 28, 1997), which supersedes

both AD 93–01–14 as well as AD 90–02–

19 [amendment 39–6433 (55 FR 601,

January 8, 1990)]. It requires:

1. Repetitive eddy current or dye

penetrant inspections to detect cracking

of an expanded area of the actuator rib

fitting,

2. Inspections to detect loose attach

fitting bolts of the door actuator,

3. Inspections to determine whether

fitting serrations are fully mated,

4. and various follow-on corrective

actions.

It also provides an optional

terminating action for the inspections,

which consists of replacing the

aluminum rib fitting with a new steel

rib fitting.

That AD was prompted by a report of

a fractured rib fitting that had been

reworked previously in accordance with

one of the existing AD’s. The actions

specified by AD 97–02–09 are intended

to prevent damage to the airplane

caused by a failure of the landing gear

to extend due to a fractured rib fitting.

FAA’s Conclusions

Because AD 97–02–09 now

incorporates, as part of its required

actions, the same actions that were

proposed in Docket 95-NM–222-AD, the

FAA finds that the previously proposed