23374 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

contained in the prior proposed and

final rules in connection with the

establishment of the salable quantities

and allotment percentages for Scotch

and Native spearmint oils for the 1997–

98 marketing year, the Committee’s

recommendation and other available

information, it is found that to revise

section 985.216 (62 FR 36650) to change

the salable quantity and allotment

percentage for Native spearmint oil, as

hereinafter set forth, will tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

This rule invites comments on a

revision to the salable quantity and

allotment percentage for Native

spearmint oil. A 20-day comment period

is provided. This comment period is

appropriate because the marketing year

ends on May 31, 1998. Any comments

received will be considered prior to

finalization of this rule.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined upon good cause

that it is impracticable, unnecessary,

and contrary to the public interest to

give preliminary notice prior to putting

this rule into effect and that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) This rule increases the

quantity of Native spearmint oil that

may be marketed during the marketing

year which ends on May 31, 1998; (2)

the quantity of Native spearmint planted

for the 1998–99 marketing year may be

affected, thus handlers and producers

should be apprised as soon as possible

of the salable quantity and allotment

percentage of Native spearmint oil

contained in this interim final rule; (3)

the Committee unanimously

recommended this change at a public

meeting and interested parties had an

opportunity to provide input; and (4)

this rule provides a 20-day comment

period and any comments received will

be considered prior to finalization of

this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Spearmint oil.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is amended as

follows:

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER

REGULATING THE HANDLING OF

SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE

FAR WEST

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 985 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 985.216 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

[Note: This section will not appear in the

annual Code of Federal Regulations.]

§ 985.216 Salable quantities and allotment

percentages—1997–98 marketing year.

* * * * *

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable

quantity of 1,185,550 pounds and an

allotment percentage of 59 percent.

Dated: April 24, 1998.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–11446 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–143–AD; Amendment

39–10499; AD 98–09–18]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

Industrie Model A320 and A321 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Industrie

Model A320 and A321 series airplanes,

that requires replacement of two

elevator aileron computers (ELAC) with

ELAC’s that contain new software. This

amendment is prompted by a report

indicating difficulty maintaining the

intended flight path during landing in

turbulent conditions. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent situations that could lead to

reduced controllability of the airplane

due to adverse airplane-pilot coupling

characteristics.

DATES: Effective June 3, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 3,

1998.

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:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 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

Industrie Model A320 and A321 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on January 7, 1997 (62 FR 949).

That action proposed to require

replacement of two elevator aileron

computers (ELAC) with ELAC’s that

contain new software.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Two commenters support the

proposed rule.

One commenter, Airbus, does not

object to the proposed AD, but offers the

following comments suggesting changes

for clarity and accuracy. The commenter

requests that the statement of unsafe

condition, ‘‘To prevent reduced

controllability of the airplane due to

problems associated with the ELAC,

accomplish the following: * * *,’’ be

replaced with, ‘‘In order to adapt lateral

control law to real flap position in case

of failure/jamming of flaps, and in order

to harmonize the lateral behavior

between ‘full’ and ‘3’ configurations, in

turbulence, of the ELAC, accomplish the

following: * * *.’’ The commenter

states that its proposed wording of the

unsafe condition is supported by the

fact that the improvement of the ELAC

is the result of an in-service event that

arose from three conditions surrounding

that event:

—Very strong turbulence during landing

preparation;

—Flaps locked between ‘‘full’’ and ‘‘3’’

configurations resulting from flaps

extension under strong turbulent

conditions, the monitoring of the

interconnecting strut between inner

and outer flap having detected an

abnormal surfaces displacement; and

—An electronic centralized aircraft

monitor (ECAM) procedure requesting

to select slat/flap lever to ‘‘conf 3’’

when flaps are locked between

configurations ‘‘3’’ and ‘‘full’’ (lever in

position ‘‘full’’).

Additionally, the commenter notes that

no system failure initiated the reported

event. In conjunction with its
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 23375

request, the commenter also questions

the accuracy of a number of statements

made in the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM), such as whether

the uncommanded roll angle

experienced was actually as great as 30

degrees.

The FAA concurs partially. The FAA

agrees that the statement of unsafe

condition should be revised. However,

the FAA does not agree with the

commenter’s suggested wording of the

unsafe condition. The FAA notes that

the preamble of the proposed rule

indicates that the unsafe condition is

due to uncommanded movements of the

ailerons. The FAA finds that a more

accurate statement of the unsafe

condition would include the fact that it

is actually associated with pilot

response coupled with the handling

characteristics of the airplane. In light of

this, the FAA has revised the statement

of unsafe condition throughout this final

rule to state that the actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent

situations that could lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane due to

adverse airplane-pilot coupling

characteristics.

The commenter also notes that the

proposed AD refers to part number

C12370AAA01 in error. The FAA has

revised the final rule to specify the

correct part number: C12370AA01.

The commenter indicates that the

referenced service bulletin has been

revised from the original issue to

Revision 1. The FAA acknowledges that

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–27–1082, Revision 1, dated

September 6, 1995, since the issuance of

the proposed rule. This service bulletin

revision contains essentially the same

information as that specified in the

original issue of the service bulletin;

however, the ELAC Configuration Chart

(Figure 1) and the effectivity listing of

the service bulletin has been revised in

Revision 1 to reduce the number of

affected airplanes. In light of this, the

applicability of the final rule has been

revised to reference Revision 1 of the

service bulletin. In addition, since

compliance with either the original

issue or Revision 1 of the service

bulletin is acceptable, the final rule has

been revised to cite Revision 1 of the

service bulletin as an additional source

of service information.

One commenter states that the cost

impact information included in the

proposed AD specifies that 108 Model

A320 and A321 series airplanes would

be affected. The commenter notes that

no Model A321 series airplanes are

currently on the U.S. Register. The FAA

acknowledges this remark; however, the

cost of compliance is the same

regardless of whether all 108 airplanes

are A320’s or some A321’s are included.

The AD applies to Model A321 series

airplanes, as well as Model A320 series

airplanes, to ensure compliance in the

event one or more affected Model A321

series airplanes is imported after the

effective date of this AD.

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 increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 108 Model

A320 and A321 series airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 3 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

will be provided by the manufacturer at

no cost to operators. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$19,440, or $180 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:

98–09–18 Airbus: Amendment 39–10499.

Docket 95–NM–143–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 and A321 series

airplanes; as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–27–1082, Revision 1, dated September

6, 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

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 situations that could lead to

reduced controllability of the airplane due to

adverse airplane-pilot coupling

characteristics, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 1 year after the effective date of

this AD, replace the ELAC’s having part

numbers (P/N) 3945122307 and/or P/N

C12370AA01 and located in aft electronics

rack 80VU, with modified ELAC’s having P/

N 3945122502, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–27–1082, dated April

25, 1995, or Revision 1, dated September 6,

1995.

Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A320–27–

1082 references Sextant Service Bulletins

394512–27–014, dated August 11, 1995 (for

airplanes on which Airbus Modification

24136P3436 has not been installed); and

C12370A–27–001, dated May 2, 1995 (for

airplanes on which Airbus Modification
23376 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

24136P3436 has been installed); as additional

sources of procedural service information for

modification of the ELAC’s.

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116, 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, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 A320–27–1082,

dated April 25, 1995, or Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–27–1082, Revision 1, dated

September 6, 1995. Revision 1 contains the

specified effective pages:

Page

no.

Revision

level

shown on

page

Date shown on page

1–2, 4–

10,

12–14.

1 .............. September 6, 1995.

3, 11,

15.

Original .... April 25, 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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive (C/N) 95–

203–072(B), dated October 11, 1995, as

corrected by Erratum dated November 8,

1995.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

June 3, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11075 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–217–AD; Amendment

39–10502; AD 98–09–21]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain British Aerospace

(Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes, that

requires a one-time inspection for

corrosion of electrical connectors in

certain areas on the pressure bulkhead

and rear baggage bay areas, and repair,

if necessary; and installation of

improved sealing. This amendment is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent the accumulation of

moisture inside the electrical

connectors, which could result in a

short circuit and consequent autopilot

disconnect, or a latent failure of the

stick pusher system.

DATES: Effective June 3, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 3,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from AI(R) American Support, Inc.,

13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon,

Virginia 20171. 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:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 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 British

Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on February 23, 1998 (63 FR

8883). That action proposed to require

a one-time inspection for corrosion of

electrical connectors in certain areas on

the pressure bulkhead and rear baggage

bay areas, and repair, if necessary; and

installation of improved sealing.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 37 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 30

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$714 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$93,018, or $2,514 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