Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19425

not been modified, prior to further flight,

perform a low frequency eddy current (LFEC)

or x-ray inspection to detect cracks at all

corners and doorstops of the forward

passenger door doorjamb, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–280, dated December 1, 1997.

(1) Group 1, Condition 1. If no crack is

detected during any LFEC or x-ray inspection

required by paragraph (b) of this AD,

accomplish the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) Option 1. Repeat the LFEC inspection

required by this paragraph thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,575 landings, or the

x-ray inspection required by this paragraph

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,075

landings; or

(ii) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify

the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb, in accordance with

the service bulletin. Prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings after

accomplishment of the modification, perform

a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspection to detect cracks on the skin

adjacent to the modification, in accordance

with the service bulletin.

(A) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the HFEC

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 20,000 landings.

(B) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, prior to further flight,

repair it in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(2) Group 1, Condition 2. If any crack is

found during any LFEC or x-ray inspection

required by paragraph (b) of this AD, and the

crack is 0.50 inch or less in length: Prior to

further flight, modify the doorstops and

corners of the forward passenger door

doorjamb in accordance with the service

bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000

landings after accomplishment of the

modification, perform a HFEC inspection to

detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the

modification, in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (b)(2)

of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (b)(2)

of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(3) Group 1, Condition 3. If any crack is

found during any LFEC or x-ray inspection

required by paragraph (b) of this AD, and the

crack is greater than 0.5 inch in length: Prior

to further flight, repair it in accordance with

a method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO.

(c) Group 2, Condition 1. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC–9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997: If the visual inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals

that the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb have been modified

previously in accordance with the

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Structural Repair

Manual (SRM), using a steel doubler,

accomplish either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of

this AD in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC–9–53–280,

dated December 1, 1997.

(1) Option 1. Prior to the accumulation of

28,000 landings after accomplishment of the

modification, or within 3,000 landings after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a HFEC inspection to

detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the

modification, in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(1)

of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(1)

of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(2) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify

the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb in accordance with

the service bulletin. Prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings after the

accomplishment of the modification, perform

a HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the

skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(2)

of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(2)

of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(d) Group 2, Condition 2. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997: If the visual inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals

that the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb have been modified

previously in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 SRM or Service Rework

Drawing, using an aluminum doubler, prior

to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after

the accomplishment of the modification, or

within 3,000 landings after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform

a HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the

skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated December 1,

1997

(1) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (d) of

this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(2) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (d) of

this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(e) Group 2, Condition 3. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997: If the visual inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals

that the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb have been modified

previously, but not in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC9 SRM or the Service

Rework Drawing, prior to further flight,

repair it in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(f) 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, Los

Angeles ACO. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(g) 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 April 13,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10277 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–74–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 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 and all Model A310 and

A300–600 series airplanes. This

proposal would require repetitive
19426 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

inspections for wear damage of the aft

attachment fittings of the articulated

seats and dummy tracks in the

passenger compartment; and repair, if

necessary. This proposal is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to detect and correct wear

damage of the aft attachment fittings of

the articulated seats and dummy tracks.

This condition, if not detected and

corrected, could cause the floor panels

to sag and result in failure of flight

control systems and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

74–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:

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:

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 98–NM–74–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–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

98-NM–74–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,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A300 series airplanes, and all

Model A310 and A300–600 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has

received reports indicating that, on inservice airplanes, wear damage was

found between frames 38.2 and 40 and

between frames 54 and 54.2 on the aft

attachment fittings of the articulated

seats and dummy tracks in the

passenger compartment. Investigation

has revealed that, under certain load

conditions, such as take-off and landing,

the sliders of the articulated seats may

cause excessive wear of the dummy

track slot contact surface. This excessive

wear restricts the sliding movement of

the articulated seats and can lead to

cracking and rupture of the attachment

fitting. This condition, if not detected

and corrected, could cause the floor

panels to sag and result in failure of

flight control systems and consequent

reduced controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins

A300–53–0329, Revision 01 (for Model

A300); A300–53–6105, Revision 01 (for

Model A300–600); and A310–53–2101,

Revision 01 (for Model A310); all dated

October 17, 1997. These service

bulletins describe procedures for

repetitive detailed visual inspections for

wear damage of the aft attachment

fittings of the articulated seats and

dummy tracks between frames 38.2 and

40 and between frames 54 and 54.2 in

the passenger compartment; and repair,

if necessary. Accomplishment of the

actions specified in the service bulletins

is intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. The DGAC

classified these service bulletins as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 97–116–222(B),

dated May 21, 1997, in order to assure

the continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplanes model 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 require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletins described

previously, except as discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, unlike the

procedures described in Airbus Service

Bulletins A300–53–0329, Revision 01

(for Model A300); Airbus A300–53–

6105, Revision 01 (for Model A300–

600), and Airbus A310–53–2101,

Revision 01 (for Model A310), all dated

October 17, 1997, this proposed AD

would not permit further flight if wear

damage is detected on the aft

attachment fittings on the articulated

seats and dummy tracks in the

passenger compartment. The FAA has

determined that, because of the safety

implications and consequences

associated with such wear damage, any

subject attachment fitting that is found

to exhibit wear damage must be repaired

prior to further flight.

In addition, operators should note

that, although the referenced service

bulletins specify that the manufacturer

may be contacted for disposition of

certain repair conditions, this proposal

would require the repair of those

conditions to be accomplished in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19427

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 126 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take

approximately 48 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

$362,880, or $2,880 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

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 98–NM–74–AD.

Applicability: Model A300 series airplanes

on which Airbus Modification 3599 or 3135

(reference Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–

0188) has been accomplished, and all Model

A310 and A300–600 series airplanes;

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 detect and correct wear damage of the

aft attachment fittings of the articulated seats

and dummy tracks in the passenger

compartment, which could cause the floor

panels to sag and result in failure of flight

control systems and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Perform a detailed visual inspection for

wear damage of the aft attachment fittings of

the articulated seats and dummy tracks in the

passenger compartment, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletins A300–53–0329,

Revision 01 (for Airbus Model A300 series

airplanes); A300–53–6105, Revision 01 (for

Airbus Model A300–600 series airplanes); or

A310–53–2101, Revision 01 (for Airbus

Model A310 series airplanes), all dated

October 17, 1997; at the applicable time

specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this

AD.

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated

less than 12,000 total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect prior to the

accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles, or

within 18 months after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated

12,000 or more total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 12

months after the effective date of this AD.

(b) If no wear damage is detected during

the inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD, repeat the detailed visual inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000

flight cycles.

(c) If any wear damage measuring 2 mm

(0.078 in.) or less is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletins

A300–53–0329, Revision 01 (for Airbus

Model A300 series airplanes); A300–53–

6105, Revision 01 (for Airbus Model A300–

600 series airplanes); or A310–53–2101,

Revision 01 (for Airbus Model A310 series

airplanes); all dated October 17, 1997. Repeat

the detailed visual inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.

(d) If any wear damage measuring more

than 2 mm (0.078 in.) is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Repeat

the detailed visual inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116. 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 97–116–

222(B), dated May 21, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10279 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–25–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault

Model Mystere-Falcon 200, Fan Jet

Falcon, and Mystere-Falcon 20 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness