Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1861

providing the degree of safety assurance

necessary for the transport airplane

fleet. This, coupled with a better

understanding of the human factors

associated with numerous continual

inspections, has led the FAA to consider

placing less emphasis on inspections

and more emphasis on design

improvements. The proposed

requirement to accomplish the

terminating action is in consonance

with these considerations.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 26 Airbus

Model A310 series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 15 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspections, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $23,400, or $900 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

It would take approximately 8 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed replacement, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $16,872 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed replacement on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $451,152, or

$17,352 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–60–AD.

Applicability: Model A310 series airplanes,

on which Airbus Modification 10962 has 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 (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 failure of the flap transmission

shaft due to damaged steady bearing

assemblies, which could cause an

uncommanded asymmetric retraction of the

flap, and result in reduced controllability of

the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 2,000 total

landings or within 500 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform a visual inspection to detect

damage or any discrepancy of the steady

bearing assemblies of the flap transmission

system, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–27–2067, Revision 1, dated

January 5, 1995.

(1) If no damage or discrepancy is detected:

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 2,000 landings, until the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are

accomplished.

(2) If any damage or discrepancy is

detected and the groove depth of the shaft is

less than 1 mm (.04 inch): Prior to the

accumulation of 50 landings after detection

of this discrepancy, replace the steady

bearing assembly with a new, like assembly

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–27–2067, Revision 1, dated January 5,

1995.

(3) If any damage or discrepancy is

detected and the groove depth on the shaft

is 1 mm or more: Prior to further flight,

replace the steady bearing assembly with a

new, like assembly, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–27–2067,

Revision 1, dated January 5, 1995.

(b) Within 5 years after the effective date

of this AD, replace all steady bearing

assemblies of the flap transmission system

with new, improved assemblies, in

accordance with Airbus A310–27–2074,

dated November 18, 1994. Accomplishment

of the replacement constitutes terminating

action for the requirements of this AD.

Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A310–27–

2074 references Lucas Liebherr Service

Bulletin 551A–27–M551–03 as an additional

source of service information for replacement

of the steady bearing assemblies with the

new, improved assemblies.

(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 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.

(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 January

7, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–813 Filed 1–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–92–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).
1862 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

and delamination of the containers in

which the left and right off-wing

emergency evacuation slides are stored,

and repair, if necessary. If cracking and

delamination in excess of certain limits

are found, the proposed AD also would

require replacement of the slide with a

modified slide; and replacement of the

discrepant container with a serviceable

container. Replacement of the slide with

a modified slide would terminate the

requirement for repetitive inspections.

This proposal is prompted by a report

indicating that a slide deployed during

flight, which resulted in the loss of the

slide and the container door. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent the loss of the

escape slides during flight, which could

make the emergency exits located over

each wing unusable and result in

damage to the fuselage.

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–

92–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2589; fax (206) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

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–92–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–92–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Generale de la 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

indicating that the left off-wing

emergency evacuation slide on one

airplane inadvertently deployed during

flight. A subsequent inspection revealed

that both the left off-wing slide and the

door to the container in which the slide

was stored were missing. Based on the

findings of the inspection, it was

concluded that the loss of the slide and

the container door were the result of the

packed slide pressing against (and

thereby exerting excessive internal

pressure on) the container. This contact

and resultant excessive pressure also

contributed to delamination of the

container door.

A slide is mounted on each side of the

airplane in the wing-to-body fairing.

Should the slide begin to deploy during

flight, air moving over the wing can

separate the slide from the airplane.

This loss of the slide during flight could

make the two emergency exits located

over each wing unusable and result in

damage to the fuselage.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–25–1161, dated June 21, 1995,

which describes procedures for

conducting repetitive detailed visual

inspections to detect cracking and

delamination of the left and right slide

containers and container doors, and

repair, if necessary. When cracking and

delamination of the container or

container door exceed certain limits,

this service bulletin also describes

procedures for replacing a discrepant

container with a serviceable container;

and for replacing the slide with a

modified slide. Accomplishment of the

slide replacement would eliminate the

need for repetitive inspections of that

container and door.

Airbus also has issued Service

Bulletin A320–25–1156, dated June 21,

1995, which describes procedures for

the replacement of the slide with a

modified slide. When the modified slide

is packed into its container, there is a 5

mm clearance between the slide and the

container door. This modification is

intended to keep the packed slide from

pressing against the container door, thus

alleviating pressure on the door; the

modification also would eliminate a

cause of delamination of the container

door.

The DGAC classified the Airbus

service bulletins as mandatory and

issued French airworthiness directive

(C/N) 95–186–071(B) R1, dated February

14, 1996, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.

Note: The Airbus service bulletins

reference the following service documents as

additional sources of procedural service

information:

—Airbus All Operator Telex 25–09, dated

January 2, 1995;

—Airbus All Operator Telex 25–09, Revision

1, dated January 2, 1995;

—Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 004–25–37;

and

—Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 004–25–38.

(Air Cruisers is the manufacturer of the slide

system.)

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1863

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 detailed visual inspections to

detect cracking and delamination of the

container and container door for the left

and right escape slides, and repair, if

necessary. If damage to the container

door exceeds certain limits, the

proposed AD would require

replacement of the escape slide with a

modified slide, and replacement of the

discrepant container with a serviceable

container. Accomplishment of the slide

replacement would constitute

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections of the container and

container door. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the Airbus service

bulletins described previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 115 Airbus

Model 320 series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 5 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed inspection, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $34,500, or $300 per

airplane, per inspection.

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–92–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes

listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–25–

1156, dated June 21, 1995; 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 (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 the loss of the off-wing

emergency evacuation slides (‘‘escape

slides’’) during flight, which could make the

two emergency exits located over each wing

unusable and result in damage to the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 500 hours time-in-service after

the effective date of this AD, perform a

detailed visual inspection to detect cracking

and delamination of each off-wing container,

including the container door, in which an

escape slide is stored, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–25–1161,

dated June 21, 1995.

Note 2: Accomplishment of inspections

prior to the effective date of this AD in

accordance with Airbus All Operator Telex

25–09, dated January 2, 1995, or Revision 1,

dated January 2, 1995; or Air Cruisers Service

Bulletin 004–25–38; is considered acceptable

for compliance with this paragraph.

(1) If no crack or delamination is found,

repeat the detailed visual inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 18 months or 4,000

landings, whichever occurs earlier.

(2) If any crack or delamination is found

which does not exceed the limits specified in

the service bulletin, prior to further flight,

repair the crack or delamination in

accordance with this service bulletin.

(3) If any crack or delamination is found

which exceeds the limits specified in the,

prior to further flight, replace the discrepant

container with a serviceable container in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–25–1161, dated June 21, 1995; and

replace the escape slide with a slide modified

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–25–1156, dated June 21, 1995.

Replacement of the slide constitutes

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections of that container required by

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.

Note 3: Accomplishment of the slide

modification prior to the effective date of this

AD in accordance with Airbus All Operator

Telex 25–09, dated January 2, 1995, or

Revision 1, dated January 2, 1995; or Air

Cruisers Service Bulletin 004–25–37; is

considered acceptable for compliance with

this paragraph.

(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 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.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

7, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–812 Filed 1–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U