20546 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

unsafe condition is addressed on all

gliders in a reasonable time period.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 5 gliders in

the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 workhours per glider to

accomplish the proposed action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $20 per glider. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $700, or $140 per glider.

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 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) 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 has been placed 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GMBH: Docket

No. 98–CE–31–AD.

Applicability: Model DG–500M gliders, all

serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each glider

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

gliders 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent the center of gravity (C.G.) tow

release cable from coming off the pulley

because of incorrect positioning, which could

result in the pilot being unable to release

from tow operations, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within the next 30 calendar days after

the effective date of this AD, inspect the C.G.

tow release cable pulley for correct

positioning in accordance with the

Instructions section of Glaser-Dirks Technical

Note No. 843–9, dated November 21, 1997. If

any tow release pulley is found out-of-center

during this inspection, prior to further flight,

replace the C.G. tow release cable pulley with

one made of aluminum, part no. S 30.

Accomplish this replacement in accordance

with the technical note.

(b) Within the next 6 calendar months after

the effective date of this AD, unless already

accomplished as required by paragraph (a) of

this AD, replace the C.G. tow release cable

pulley with one made of aluminum, part no.

S 30. Accomplish this replacement in

accordance with the Instructions section of

Glaser-Dirks Technical Note No. 843–9, dated

November 21, 1997.

(c) The replacement required by paragraph

(b) of this AD may be accomplished at any

time prior to the required time, including in

lieu of the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD.

(d) 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 glider to a location

where the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request

shall be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(f) Questions or technical information

related to Glaser-Dirks Technical Note No.

843–9, dated November 21, 1997, should be

directed to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Postfach

4120, D–76625 Bruchsal 4, Germany;

telephone: +49 7257–89–0; facsimile: +49

7257–8922. This service information may be

examined at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German AD 1998–023, dated January 15,

1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

17, 1998.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11013 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–77–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 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 A320 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

in the pressurized floor pick-up angles

on the rear spar of the wing, and

replacement of any cracked pick-up

angle and its associated diaphragms

with improved parts. Such replacement

would terminate the repetitive

inspections for that angle. 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

cracking in the pressurized floor pickup angles at the rear spar of the wing,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airframe.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 27, 1998.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20547

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

77–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–77–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–77–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 or develop on

certain Airbus Model A320 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that,

during fatigue testing, cracking was

found on a test article in the pressurized

floor pick-up angles at the rear spar of

the wing. Such fatigue cracking, if not

detected and corrected in a timely

manner, could result in reduced

structural integrity of the airframe.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1090,

Revision 01, dated June 10, 1997, which

describes procedures for repetitive eddy

current inspections to detect cracking in

the pressurized floor pick-up angles on

the rear spar of the wing. The

manufacturer also has issued Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1025,

Revision 05, dated June 26, 1997, which

describes procedures for replacing any

cracked pick-up angle and its associated

diaphragms with improved parts.

Accomplishment of the replacement

involves removing existing fasteners,

diaphragms, and pick-up angles;

installing improved pick-up angles,

diaphragms, and fasteners; cold

expanding certain fastener holes; and

performing a rotating probe inspection

for cracking of the fastener holes. Such

replacement would eliminate the need

for the repetitive inspection requirement

for that pick-up angle. Accomplishment

of the replacement is intended to

adequately address the identified unsafe

condition.

The DGAC classified Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–57–1090 as mandatory

and issued French airworthiness

directive CN 97–084–097 (B), dated

March 12, 1997, in order to assure the

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in France and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of § 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 inspections

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1090, Revision 01, except as

discussed below. This proposed AD also

would provide for optional terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

Operators should note that, in

consonance with the findings of the

DGAC, the FAA has determined that the

repetitive inspections proposed by this

AD can be allowed to continue in lieu

of accomplishment of a terminating

action. In making this determination,

the FAA considers that, in this case,

long-term continued operational safety

will be adequately assured by

accomplishing the repetitive inspections

to detect cracking before it represents a

hazard to the airplane.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, unlike the

procedures described in Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–57–1090, this proposed

AD would not permit further flight if

cracks are detected in any pressurized

floor pick-up angle. The FAA has

determined that, because of the safety

implications and consequences

associated with such cracking, any

subject pressurized floor pick-up angle

that is found to be cracked must be

replaced prior to further flight.

Operators also should note that,

although Airbus Service Bulletin A320–

57–1025 specifies that the manufacturer

may be contacted for disposition of

certain repair conditions associated

with accomplishment of the

replacement, this proposal would

require the repair of those conditions to

be accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by either the FAA or

the DGAC (or its delegated agent). In

light of the type of repair that would be

required to address the identified unsafe

condition, and in consonance with

existing bilateral airworthiness

agreements, the FAA has determined

that, for this proposed AD, a repair

approved by either the FAA or the

DGAC would be acceptable for

compliance with this proposed AD.
20548 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 120 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 work hours per

airplane (including access and close) to

accomplish the proposed inspection, at

an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the inspection proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $57,600, or $480 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.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

proposed AD action, it would take

approximately 140 work hours to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts would be approximately $10,103

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of that optional terminating

action would be $18,503 per airplane.

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–77–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes,

as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–

1090, Revision 01, dated June 10, 1997;

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 (d) 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 cracking in the

pressurized floor pick-up angles at the rear

spar of the wing, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the airframe,

accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total

flight cycles, or within 60 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform an eddy current inspection to

detect cracking in the pressurized floor pickup angles on the rear spar of the wing, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1090, Revision 01, dated June 10,

1997.

(1) If no cracking is found, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 10,000 flight cycles.

(2) If any cracking is found during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, replace each cracked pick-up

angle and its associated diaphragms with

improved parts, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1025, Revision 05,

dated June 26, 1997. For all pick-up angles

not replaced with improved angles, repeat

the inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 10,000 flight cycles.

(b) Replacement of a pick-up angle and its

associated diaphragms with improved parts,

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1025, Revision 05, dated June 26,

1997, constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements for that

pick-up angle.

(c) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, and the

applicable service bulletin specifies to

contact Airbus for appropriate action: Prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by either the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate; or the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (or its

delegated agent).

(d) 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 request 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.

(e) 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive CN 97–

084–097 (B), dated March 12, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11090 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–110–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and C–9 (Military)

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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9 and C–9 (military) series airplanes.

This proposal would require repetitive

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the fuselage frames and longerons 16R