17534 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) 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 structural damage to the tail

section of the airplane when it strikes the

runway which, if undetected, could result in

depressurization of the fuselage during flight,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 6 years after the effective date

of this AD, modify the fuselage by reinforcing

frames 68 and 69 in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1110, dated

August 28, 1995.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1110,

dated August 28, 1995. This incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be

obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

May 15, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 2,

1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–9009 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–239–AD; Amendment

39–9993; AD 97–08–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747–100, –200, and –300 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747–

100, –200, and –300 series airplanes,

that requires replacement of certain

switches in the cabin attendant’s panel

at door 4 right and door 2 right with

new improved switches. This

amendment is prompted by reports

indicating that fires have occurred on

some airplanes due to the internal

failure of some of these switches. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent the installation and

use of switches that could short circuit

when they fail, and consequently cause

fire and smoke aboard the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 15, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 15,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Forrest Keller, Senior Aerospace

Engineer, Systems and Equipment

Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington;

telephone (206) 227–2790; fax (206)

227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Boeing

Model 747–100, –200, and –300 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register as a supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

January 21, 1997 (62 FR 2981). That

action proposed to require removing

switches S4 and/or S5, or switches S7

and S8, that are currently installed on

the cabin attendant’s panel at door 4

right, and the equivalent switches at

door 2 right, and replacing them with

new improved switches.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

Two commenters support the

proposed rule.

Request To Include a New Requirement

for Doors 1 and 3

One commenter requests that the

proposed replacement of the switches

on the cabin attendant’s panel also be

accomplished at doors 1 and 3. The

commenter states that doors 1 and 3

have the same switches that are subject

to the addressed unsafe condition as the

switches at doors 2 and 4.

The FAA acknowledges that the

switches at doors 1 and 3 are prone to

failure; however, at this time, the FAA

has received no reports of fire and

smoke at those locations. The FAA

points out that adding a new

requirement to the proposed AD would

require public comment before adopting

a final rule, hence a second

supplemental NPRM. The FAA has

considered the degree of urgency

associated with addressing the

identified unsafe condition at doors 2

and 4, and the amount of time that has

already elapsed since issuance of the

original proposed rule. In light of these

items, the FAA has determined that

further delay of this final rule action is

not appropriate. However, the FAA is

currently considering issuing a separate

rulemaking action to address the

identified unsafe condition at doors 1

and 3.

Request for an Alternative Method of

Compliance

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise paragraph (a) of the proposed rule

to reference an alternative method of

compliance for replacing the existing

switches with new improved

replacement switches. The commenter

recommends suitable plug-in switches,

in lieu of the soldered switches, as

described in Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–33A2252, dated August 1,

1996 (which is referenced in the

proposed AD as the appropriate source

of service information). The commenter

states that soldered switches add
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 17535

considerable complexity and cost to the

replacement, which prevents

accomplishment of the replacement on

the line. The commenter notes that it

has requested Boeing revise the

referenced alert service bulletin to

specify a suitable plug-in switch.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

does not consider it appropriate to

include various provisions in an AD

applicable to a single operator’s unique

use of an affected airplane. Paragraph (c)

of this AD contains a provision for

requesting approval of an alternative

method of compliance to address these

types of unique circumstances. The

FAA acknowledges that a design

solution that utilizes plug-in switches

may cost less and may be less complex;

however, the FAA does not mandate a

design solution based on those criteria

alone. Further, the FAA is unaware of

a revision to the referenced alert service

bulletin.

Request To Revise the Cost Estimate

One commenter questions the FAA’s

cost and work hour estimate in the

preamble of the proposal. The

commenter states that the estimated per

airplane cost of $1,112, presented in the

cost impact information in the preamble

to the proposal, is too low. This

commenter suggests that the required

replacement would take approximately

10 work hours per airplane and would

cost approximately $1,300 per panel (2

panels per airplane). Upon further

review, the FAA concurs that the

number of work hours and cost of

required parts is higher than

approximated previously. The FAA has

revised the cost impact information,

below, to include this updated

information.

New Notice of Status Change

Since issuance of the supplemental

NPRM, Boeing has issued Notice of

Status Change (NSC) 747–33A2252 NSC

01, dated October 10, 1996, which

amends Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

747–33A2252, dated August 1, 1996.

This NSC removes airplanes that have

been converted to special freighters

from the effectivity listing of the alert

service bulletin and makes certain

editorial changes. The FAA has revised

the final rule to reference this NSC as an

additional source of service information.

New ‘‘Note 2’’

The FAA has revised the final rule to

include a new NOTE 2 to clarify that,

although the procedures in Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–33A2252, dated

August 1, 1996, address replacing only

the switches located at door 4, they can

be used just as effectively for replacing

the switches located at door 2. The FAA

mentioned this clarification in the

Requirements of the Revised Proposed

Rule Section in the preamble of the

supplemental NPRM.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither significantly increase the

economic burden on any operator nor

increase the scope of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 648 Boeing

Model 747–100, –200, and –300 series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. Of this number, the

FAA estimates that 167 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD.

The required replacement of the

switches will take approximately 10

work hours per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts will cost

approximately $1,300 per panel (2

panels per airplane). Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$534,400, or $3,200 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the 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 adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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:

97–08–05 Boeing: Amendment 39–9993.

Docket 96–NM–239–AD.

Applicability: Model 747–100, –200, and

–300 series airplanes; as listed in Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–33A2252, dated

August 1, 1996, as revised by Boeing Notice

of Status Change 747–33A2252 NSC 01,

dated October 10, 1996; 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 the installation and use of

switches in the cabin attendant’s panel that

could short circuit when they fail, and

consequently cause fire and smoke aboard

the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 10 months after the effective

date of this AD, remove switches S4 and/or

S5, or switches S7 and S8, that are installed

in the cabin attendant’s panel at door 4 right,

and the equivalent switches at door 2 right,

and replace them with new switches in

accordance with the procedures specified in

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–33A2252,

dated August 1, 1996, as revised by Boeing

Notice of Status Change 747–33A2252 NSC

01, dated October 10, 1996.
17536 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Note 2: Although the procedures in Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–33A2252, dated

August 1, 1996, as revised by Boeing Notice

of Status Change 747–33A2252 NSC 01,

dated October 10, 1996, address replacing

only the switches located at door 4, they can

be used just as effectively for replacing the

switches located at door 2.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install at door 2 right or at door

4 right of any airplane an attendant’s panel

having switch part numbers identified in the

‘‘Old Switch’’ column of any table contained

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

33A2252, dated August 1, 1996, as revised by

Boeing Notice of Status Change 747–33A2252

NSC 01, dated October 10, 1996.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) The replacement shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–33A2252, dated August 1, 1996,

as revised by Boeing Notice of Status Change

747–33A2252 NSC 01, dated October 10,

1996. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

May 15, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 2,

1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–9010 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–196–AD; Amendment

39–9991; AD 97–08–03]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A310 and A300–600 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A310 and A300–600 series airplanes,

that requires a functional flow test and

leak test to verify if the pressure

reducing valve in the cargo fire

extinguishing system is in a serviceable

condition, and replacement of any

faulty valve with a new valve prior to

extended range twin-engine operations

of the airplane. This amendment is

prompted by a report that, during a

scheduled maintenance check, an

inoperative pressure reducing valve was

found in the cargo fire extinguishing

system. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to ensure that a faulty

pressure reducing valve is not installed,

which could result in reduced fire

protection of the cargo compartment of

the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 15, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 15,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

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: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Airbus

Model A310 and A300–600 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on September 7, 1995 (60 FR

46541). That action proposed to require

a functional flow test and leak test to

verify if the pressure reducing valve in

the cargo fire extinguishing system is in

a serviceable condition.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed AD.

Request To Make AD Effective

Immediately

One commenter supports the intent of

the proposed rule, but opposes the

FAA’s method of issuing the rule by

providing time for prior notice and

public comment. This commenter

considers that the potential unsafe

condition regarding the fire

extinguishing systems that qualify an

airplane for extend range twin-engine

operation (ETOPS) flights should have

been issued as an immediately adopted

rule. Further, the commenter contends

that the AD should prohibit extended

ETOPS operation beyond 60 minutes,

and include a temporary revision to the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) alerting

the crew of the potentially unsafe

condition should a fire exist.

Terminating action for the restricted

operation and AFM revision should be

authorized after compliance with the

inspection and replacement criteria of

the AD. The commenter maintains that

the seriousness of a cargo fire during

ETOPS operation mandates such action.

While the FAA recognizes the

urgency of safety measures to ensure

that fire does not present an unsafe

condition onboard an airplane, the FAA

does not concur with the commenter’s

suggestion that notice and time for

public comment should have been

waived for this rulemaking action. The

FAA conducted a review of the

characteristics of the failure mode

relative to the subject pressure valve

and concluded that the safety

implications did not warrant

rulemaking without the opportunity for

public participation. The airplane on

which the inoperative pressure reducing

valve was found was not approved for

ETOPS operations. Further, at the time

the notice was issued, there were no

U.S.-registered Model A300–600 or

A310 series airplanes that were

approved for ETOPS operations. The

consequences of the subject faulty valve

are not as critical for non-ETOPS