This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

1695

Vol. 62, No. 8

Monday, January 13, 1997

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Parts 213 and 338

RIN 3206–AG21

Summer Employment

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) is proposing to

eliminate regulations that refer to

‘‘summer employment’’ as a separate

program. The proposed change is part of

OPM efforts to eliminate unnecessary

appointing authorities. Agencies would

use temporary limited appointments or

student temporary appointments, as

appropriate, to appoint individuals

during the ‘‘summer months.’’

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver written

comments to Mary Lou Lindholm,

Associate Director for Employment,

Office of Personnel Management, Room

6F08, 1900 E Street NW., Washington,

DC 20415.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Jacobs on (202) 606–0830, TDD

(202) 606–0023, or FAX (202) 606–2329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As

recommended by the National

Performance Review (NPR), OPM

abolished the Federal Personnel Manual

which contained detailed hiring

guidance for the summer employment

program. The NPR also recommended

OPM reduce the number of Federal

hiring authorities and decentralize

many personnel decisions. As a result,

OPM revised the regulations on

temporary employment and streamlined

the student employment programs to

give more flexibility in the hiring

process. Under the proposed

elimination of the summer employment

program, agencies would fill timelimited appointments that occur during

the summer months by using either the

temporary appointing authority in parts

316 and 333 or the student temporary

appointment in parts 213 and 302, as

appropriate. The proposal would

remove the restrictions on the time

period during which ‘‘summer’’

appointments can be made.

Individuals appointed, including

those appointed during the summer

months, under § 316.402 of this chapter

may be reappointed under the

conditions set forth in § 316.402(b)(3)—

noncompetitive temporary limited

appointments and § 316.401(d)—

execeptions to the general time limits on

making temporary appointments.

However, students appointed under the

student temporary employment program

(5 CFR 213.3202) are not subject to the

time limits in parts 316 or 213, or the

reappointment procedures in part 316.

Agencies may reappoint these students

at any time, as appropriate.

Eliminating the separate summer

program would remove the specific

restrictions on the employment of sons

and daughters. However, rules

prohibiting nepotism in part 310

continue in full force.

Also, the proposal would require

applicants to pass any written test

required by the competitive service

qualification standards. However,

students hired under excepted

appointments would not be required to

pass a written examination.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

(including small businesses, small

organizational units, and small

governmental jurisdictions) because the

regulations apply only to appointment

procedures for certain employees in

Federal agencies.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Parts 213 and

338

Government employees, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

James B. King,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend

5 CFR parts 213 and 338 as follows:

PART 213—EXCEPTED SERVICE

1. The authority citation for part 213

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302, E.O.

10577, 3 CFR 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218;

§ 213.101 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 2103;

§ 213.3102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3301,

3302, 3307, 8337(h), 8456; E.O. 12364, 47 FR

22931, 3 CFR 1982 Comp., p. 185; and 38

U.S.C. 4301 et seq.

§ 213.3101 [Amended]

2. In § 213.3101, paragraphs (b)

[Reserved] through (f) are removed and

the paragraph designation in paragraph

(a) is removed.

PART 338—QUALIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS (GENERAL)

3. The authority citation for part 338

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302; E.O. 10577,

3 CFR 1954–58 Comp., p. 218.

Subpart B—[Reserved]

4. In part 338, subpart B consisting of

§ 338.202, is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 97–699 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–101–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 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 A300 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive checks and testing of certain

equipment that regulates the flow of fuel

from wing tank 2A to the number 2

engine. This proposal also would

require replacement of this equipment

with equipment that has been designed

to prevent incorrect installation; this

replacement would be terminating

action for the repetitive equipment

checks and tests. This proposal is

prompted by reports indicating that the

incorrect installation of this equipment

has caused the flight crew to shut off,
1696 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

rather than open, certain valves that

regulate the flow of fuel from between

this tank and engine. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and rectify incorrect

installations, which could result in the

flight crew inadvertently shutting off the

flow of fuel to the engine, and

consequent engine failure during flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

101–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–101–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–101–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, has

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

A300 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that it has received reports

indicating that the number 2 engine on

some airplanes had failed because fuel

from wing tank 2A was not reaching this

engine. Subsequent investigation

detected the presence of a loose control

knob for the isolation valve switch that

controls the flow of fuel between this

wing tank and engine, and it was

determined that the knob had been

incorrectly installed. Consequently,

when the control knob was turned to the

‘‘open’’ position, it was, in fact, closed,

thereby cutting off the fuel supply to the

engine. This condition, if not corrected,

could result in the flight crew

inadvertently shutting off the supply of

fuel to this engine, and consequent

failure of this engine during flight.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued A300 All Operator

Telex (AOT) 28–03, dated June 6, 1991,

which describes procedures for

conducting a physical check of the

control knobs for the isolation valve and

crossfeed valve control unit 5QB, which

is located on fuel panel 52 VU in the

cockpit; and procedures for testing this

control unit to determine if the control

knob settings are correct.

The DGAC classified this AOT as

mandatory and issued airworthiness

directive (C/N) 91–173–126(B) R1, dated

February 19, 1992, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.

Airbus also has issued Service

Bulletin A300–28–055, Revision 3,

dated December 19, 1991, as amended

by Service Bulletin Change Notice 3.A.,

dated March 16, 1992. This service

bulletin describes procedures for

replacing the isolation valve and

crossfeed valve control unit 5QB with a

modified control unit. This replacement

is intended to make it impossible to

incorrectly install this control unit.

Airbus also has issued Service

Bulletin A300–28–0061, Revision 1,

dated March 14, 1992, which describes

procedures for replacing the control

knobs on the isolation valve and

crossfeed valve control unit 5QB with

new knobs. The replacement knobs are

designed so that they can only be

installed the correct way.

Note: The Airbus service bulletins

reference the following service bulletins,

issued by L’e ́quipment et La Construction

Electrique (ECE), as additional sources of

procedural service information for

performing these actions:

ECE Service Bulletin

Number Date

28–191 ......................... July 26, 1982.

28–195 ......................... August 31, 1983.

28–196 ......................... August 31, 1983.

28–228 ......................... November 1, 1991.

The DGAC classified the Airbus

service bulletins as optional;

accomplishment of the procedures

described in these service bulletins,

however, would terminate the repetitive

equipment checks and tests, required by

French CN 91–173–126(B) R1.

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

repetitive checks of the control knobs on

isolation valve and crossfeed valve

control unit 5QB; and repetitive tests of

this control unit. As terminating action

for these repetitive checks and tests,

operators would be required to replace

these knobs and this control unit with

knobs and a control unit that have been

modified. These modified items prevent

the knobs and control unit from being
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1697

installed incorrectly. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service documents

described previously.

Differences Between the Proposed Rule

and the French CN

Operators should note that, while the

proposed AD would require the

replacement of the control knobs on the

isolation valve and crossfeed valve

control unit with modified units, the

French DGAC, as iterated in its CN 91–

173–126(B) R1, has provided for this

replacement only as an optional action.

Both the FAA and the DGAC agree,

however, that accomplishment of the

replacement would terminate the

requirements for repetitive checks and

tests of this equipment.

In proposing to mandate these

replacement actions, the FAA considers

that, unless the equipment is replaced

with the modified equipment, the

possibility of incorrect installation will

always exist whenever normal

maintenance is performed. The FAA has

determined that long-term continued

operational safety will be better assured

by modifications or design changes to

remove the source of the problem, rather

than by repetitive checks or tests. Longterm checks or tests may not provide the

degree of safety assurance necessary for

the transport airplane fleet. This,

coupled with a better understanding of

the human factors associated with

numerous repetitive checks and tests,

has led the FAA to consider placing less

emphasis on special procedures and

more emphasis on design

improvements. The proposed

replacement requirement is in

consonance with these considerations.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 13 Airbus

Model A300 series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish each

proposed check and test cycle, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of this proposed requirement on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $780, or $60

per airplane, per check/test cycle.

It would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

proposed replacement of the control

knobs and control unit, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $1,043 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed replacement action on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$14,339, or $1,103 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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–101–AD.

Applicability: Model A300 series airplanes,

as listed in the Airbus service documents

referenced in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of

this AD; 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 the flight crew from

inadvertently shutting off the flow of fuel

from wing tank 2A to the number 2 engine,

due to the incorrect installation of the

isolation valve and crossfeed valve control

unit 5QB, and the consequent failure of the

engine, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes listed in Airbus A300 All

Operator Telex (AOT) 28–03, dated June 6,

1991: Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a check and functional

test of the control knob configurations for the

isolation valve and crossfeed valve control

unit 5QB, in accordance with Airbus AOT

28–03, dated June 6, 1991.

(1) Repeat the check and test thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-inservice, and prior to further flight after any

maintenance action is performed on the

control unit.

(2) Any unit that does not successfully pass

the check/functional test, must be repaired or

otherwise rectified prior to further flight, in

accordance with the AOT.

(b) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–28–055, Revision 3, dated

December 19, 1991, as amended by Service

Bulletin Change Notice 3.A., dated March 16,

1992: Within 2 years after the effective date

of this AD, replace the crossfeed and

isolation valve control unit 5QB with a

modified unit, in accordance Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–28–055, Revision 3, dated

December 19, 1991, as amended by Service

Bulletin Change Notice 3.A.

Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–

055, Revision 3, references L’e ́quipment et La

Construction Electrique (ECE) Service

Bulletins 28–195 and 28–196, both dated

August 31, 1983, as additional sources of

procedural information for replacement of

the control unit.

(c) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–28–0061, Revision 1, dated

March 14, 1992: Within 2 years after the

effective date of this AD, replace the control

knobs on the crossfeed and isolation valve

control unit 5QB with new knobs, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–28–0061, Revision 1, dated March 14,

1992.

Note 3: Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–

0061, Revision 1, references ECE Service

Bulletins 28–191, dated July 26, 1982, and

28–228, dated November 1, 1991, as

additional sources of procedural information

for replacement of the control knobs.

(d) Accomplishment of both of the

replacements specified in paragraphs (b) and
1698 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(c) of this AD constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive checks and tests required by

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

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 4: 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 January

6, 1997.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–682 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–ASO–40]

Proposed Amendment to Class D and

E2 Airspace; Orlando, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend Class D and E2 surface area

airspace at Orlando, FL. A GPS RWY 7

and a GPS RWY 25 Standard Instrument

Approach Procedures (SIAP’s) have

been developed for the Orlando

Executive Airport. Additional

controlled airspace extending upward

from the surface is needed to

accommodate these SIAP’s and for

instrument flight rules (IFR) operations

at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposed in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

96–ASO–40, Manager, Operations

Branch, ASO–530, P.O. Box 20636,

Atlanta, Georgia 30320.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550,

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,

Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305–

5586.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Benny L. McGlamery, Operations

Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, P.O. Box

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;

telephone (404) 305–5570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written date, views

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket and be submitted in

triplicate to the address listed above.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

on this notice must submit with those

comments a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Airspace Docket No. 96–ASO–40.’’ The

postcard will be date/time stamped and

returned to the commenter. All

communications received before the

specified closing date for comments will

be considered before taking action on

the proposed rule. The proposal

contained in this notice may be changed

in light of the comments received. All

comments submitted will be available

for examination in the Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel for Southern

Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337,

both before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Manager,

Operations Branch, ASO–530, Air

Traffic Division, P.O. Box 20636,

Atlanta, Georgia 30320.

Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRMs should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A which describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to Part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to

amend Class D and E2 surface area

airspace at Orlando, FL. to

accommodate a GPS RWY 7 and a GPS

RWY 25 SIAP’s for the Orlando

Executive Airport. Additional

controlled airspace extending upward

from the surface is needed to

accommodate these SIAP’s and for IFR

operations at the airport. Class D

airspace designations and Class E

airspace designations for airspace areas

designated as a surface area for an

airport are published in Paragraphs

5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA

Order 7400.9D, dated September 4,

1996, and effective September 16, 1996,

which are incorporated by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 The Class D and E airspace

designations listed in this document

would be published subsequently in the

Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as

the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

Part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation