Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14365

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 39–8817 (59 FR

6535, February 11, 1994), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

LOCKHEED: Docket 97–NM–06–AD.

Supersedes AD 94–03–10, Amendment 39–

8817.

Applicability: Model L–1011 series

airplanes, equipped with Rolls-Royce Model

RB211–524 series engines; 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 reduce the possibility of a fire in the

engine high speed gearbox, and to insure

that, if a fire occurs, it is readily detected by

the flight crew, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 16,000 flight hours or 48 months

after March 14, 1994, (the effective date of

AD 94–03–10, amendment 39–8817),

whichever occurs first, accomplish both

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD:

(1) Install a new vent tube in the gear

compartment of the high speed gearbox on

the number 1, number 2, and number 3

engines, in accordance with Rolls-Royce

Service Bulletin RB.211–72–4666, Revision

4, dated May 16, 1986.

Note 2: Installation of a new vent tube

prior to the effective date of this AD in

accordance with Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin

RB.211–72–4666, Revision 3, dated October

14, 1977, is considered acceptable for

compliance with this AD.

(2) Modify the breather duct of the high

speed gearbox on the number 2 engine in

accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin

093–71–067, Revision 2, dated December 12,

1988.

Note 3: Modification of the breather duct

prior to the effective date of this AD in

accordance with Lockheed Service Bullion

093–71–067, Revision 1, dated April 1, 1986,

is considered acceptable for compliance with

this AD.

(b) Install an additional fire detection

system on the high speed gearbox on the

number 1, number 2, and number 3 engines

in accordance with paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or

(b)(3) of this AD, as applicable:

(1) For airplanes on which an additional

fire detection system has not been installed:

Within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, install the system in accordance

with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–26–039,

Revision 1, dated April 10, 1996.

(2) For airplanes on which an additional

fire detection system has been installed prior

to the effective date of this AD and in

accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin

093–26–039, dated November 11, 1992:

Within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, modify the system in accordance

with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–26–039,

Revision 1, dated April 10, 1996.

(3) For airplanes on which an additional

fire detection system has been installed prior

to the effective date of this AD and in

accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin

093–26–039, Revision 1, dated April 10,

1996: No further action is required by this

paragraph.

(c)(1) 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, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small 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, Atlanta ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

94–03–10, amendment 39–8817, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

(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 March

20, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7682 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–165–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300-B2 and -B4 Series Airplanes,

Excluding Model A300–600 Series

Airplanes, Equipped With General

Electric CF6–50 Series Engines or

Pratt & Whitney JT9D–59A Engines

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 certain

Airbus Model A300-B2 and -B4 series

airplanes that currently requires an

inspection to detect discrepancies of a

certain thrust reverser control lever

spring; an operational test to verify the

integrity of the flight inhibition circuit

of the thrust reverser system; and either

the correction of discrepancies or

deactivation of the associated thrust

reverser. That AD also provides for an

optional terminating action. That AD

was prompted by a report that, due to

broken and deformed thrust reverser

control lever springs, an uncommanded

movement of the thrust reverser lever to

the unlock position and a ‘‘reverser

unlock’’ amber warning occurred on one

airplane. The actions specified by that

AD are intended to detect such broken

or deformed control lever springs before

they lead to uncommanded deployment

of a thrust reverser and consequent

reduced controllability of the airplane.

This proposal would require installation

of the previously optional terminating

action in accordance with the latest

service information.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM–

165-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
14366 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

Chuck 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–156-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–165-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On February 8, 1996, the FAA issued

AD 96–04–05, amendment 39–9517 (61

FR 6503, February 21, 1996), applicable

to certain Airbus Model A300–B2 and

–B4 series airplanes, to require an

inspection to detect discrepancies of a

certain thrust reverser control lever

spring; an operational test to verify the

integrity of the flight inhibition circuit

of the thrust reverser system; and either

the correction of discrepancies or

deactivation of the associated thrust

reverser. That AD also provides for

optional terminating action for the

inspection and test. That AD was

prompted by a report that, due to broken

and deformed thrust reverser control

lever springs, an uncommanded

movement of the thrust reverser lever to

the unlock position and a ‘‘reverser

unlock’’ amber warning occurred on one

airplane. The requirements of that AD

are intended to detect such broken or

deformed control lever springs before

they lead to uncommanded deployment

of a thrust reverser and consequent

reduced controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 96–04–05,

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A300–78–0015, Revision 2, dated May

24, 1996, as revised by Change Notice

2.A., dated May 24, 1996. This service

bulletin revision describes procedures

for replacement of the left and right

control levers of the thrust reverser with

new control levers equipped with new

springs. The new spring has a 100

percent increase in stiffness and

possesses a redundant locking device.

Accomplishment of the replacement

eliminates the need for the inspection

and operational test. The revised service

bulletin indicates that, for airplanes on

which the replacement specified in the

original issue or Revision 1 of the

service bulletin has been accomplished,

additional work is necessary.

The Direction Generale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

classified Revision 2 of the service

bulletin as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directive 95–185–

187(B)R1, dated March 27, 1996, in

order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France. The French airworthiness

directive specifies that Revision 2 of the

service bulletin is the appropriate

source of service information for

accomplishment of the replacement,

and that the original issue and Revision

1 of the service bulletin may not be used

to accomplish that action.

Additionally, it should be noted that,

in the preamble of AD 96–04–05, the

FAA indicated that the optional

terminating action was considered to be

‘‘interim action,’’ and that further

rulemaking action to require that

terminating action was being

considered. The FAA is now proposing

to mandate the previously optional

terminating action in accordance with

the latest service bulletin revision

described previously, rather than in

accordance with the original issue of the

service bulletin, as specified in AD 96–

04–05.

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

supersede AD 96–04–05 to continue to

require an inspection to detect

discrepancies of a certain thrust reverser

control lever spring; an operational test

to verify the integrity of the flight

inhibition circuit of the thrust reverser

system; and either the correction of

discrepancies or deactivation of the

associated thrust reverser.

The proposed AD also would require

replacement of the left and right control

levers of the thrust reverser with new

control levers equipped with new

springs; this replacement would

constitute terminating action for the

inspection and operational test

requirements. This action would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

The optional terminating action that

was previously provided for by AD 96–

04–05 would effectively be removed

from the airplane when the replacement

required by this proposed AD is

installed. Additionally, for those

airplanes on which the previously

optional terminating action has not been

accomplished, no additional work

would be required to be to install the

replacement proposed by this AD.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14367

Cost Impact

There are approximately 21 Airbus

Model A300–B2 and –B4 series

airplanes of U.S. registry that would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 96–04–05 take

approximately 6 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts cost approximately $55

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact on U.S. operators of the

actions currently required is estimated

to be $8,715, or $415 per airplane.

The new actions that are proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 5 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $1,945 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

on U.S. operators of the proposed

requirements of this AD is estimated to

be $47,145, or $2,245 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or 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 39–9517 (61 FR

6503, February 21, 1996), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 96-NM–165-AD.

Supersedes AD 96–04–05, Amendment 39–

9517.

Applicability: Model A300-B2 and -B4

series airplanes, equipped with General

Electric CF6–50 series engines or Pratt &

Whitney JT9D–59A engines; certificated in

any category.

Note 1: Model A300–600 series airplanes

are not subject to the requirements of this

AD.

Note 2: 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 detect broken or deformed thrust

reverser control lever springs before they lead

to uncommanded deployment of a thrust

reverser and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

Restatement of Requirements of AD 96–04–

05, Amendment 39–9517:

(a) Within 500 flight hours after March 22,

1996 (the effective date AD 96–04–05,

amendment 39–9517), perform a mechanical

integrity inspection to detect discrepancies of

the thrust reverser control lever spring

having part number (P/N) A2791294520000,

and an operational test to verify the integrity

of the flight inhibition circuit of the thrust

reverser system, in accordance with Airbus

All Operators Telex (AOT) 78–03, Revision 1,

dated July 20, 1994.

(1) If no discrepancies are detected, no

further action is required by paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(2) If the control lever spring is found

broken or out of tolerance, prior to further

flight, replace it with a new control lever

spring or deactivate the associated thrust

reverser in accordance with the AOT.

(3) If the flight inhibition circuit of the

thrust reverser system fails the operational

test, prior to further flight, determine the

origin of the malfunction, in accordance with

the AOT.

(i) If the origin of the malfunction is

identified, prior to further flight, repair the

flight inhibition circuit in accordance with

the AOT.

(ii) If the origin of the malfunction is not

identified, prior to further flight, replace the

relay having P/N 125GB or 124GB, and repeat

the operational test, in accordance with the

AOT. If the malfunction is still present, prior

to further flight, inspect and repair the wiring

in accordance with the AOT. If the

malfunction is still present following the

inspection and repair, prior to further flight,

deactivate the associated thrust reverser in

accordance with the AOT.

New Requirements of this AD:

(b) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, replace the left and right control

levers of the thrust reverser with new control

levers equipped with new springs, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–78–0015, Revision 2, dated May 24,

1996, as revised by Change Notice 2.A., dated

May 24, 1996. After replacement, no further

action is required by this AD.

Note 3: Accomplishment of the

replacement in accordance with either the

original issue or Revision 1 of Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–78–0015 is not considered

acceptable for compliance with the

applicable action specified in 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 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.

(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 March

20, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7683 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U