24760 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 ground cooling

fan, which could result in smoke in the flight

deck and cabin and consequent inability of

the flight crew to perform duties or possible

passenger injury due to smoke inhalation,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 3 months after the effective date

of this AD, modify the ground cooling fan

and rotate the modified check valve, in

accordance with Dornier Service Bulletin

SB–328–21–227, dated July 16, 1997.

Note 2: The service bulletin references

EG&G Rotron Service Bulletin 011389500–

21–1, dated April 30, 1997, as an additional

source of service information to accomplish

the actions required by this AD.

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

person shall install on any airplane a ground

cooling fan, part number 011389500, unless

it has been modified in accordance with

Dornier Service Bulletin SB–328–21–227,

dated July 16, 1997.

(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,

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.

(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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German airworthiness directive 97–243,

dated August 28, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11888 Filed 5–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–18–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 fatigue

cracking of the front spar vertical

stringers on the wings; and repair, if

necessary. This proposal also provides

for an optional terminating action for

the repetitive inspections. 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

fatigue cracking of the front spar vertical

stringers on the wings, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the airframe.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

18–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–18–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–18–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 A320 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that, during full-scale fatigue

testing on a Model A320 test article,

fatigue cracking occurred at 116,151

simulated flights on the front vertical

stringer on the wing at frame 36. 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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–57–1016, Revision 1, dated

December 6, 1995, which describes

procedures for repetitive eddy current
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 24761

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the front spar vertical stringers on the

wings.

In addition, Airbus has issued Service

Bulletin A320–57–1017, Revision 01,

dated March 17, 1997, which describes

procedures for modification of the front

spar vertical stringers on the wings. The

modification includes the installation of

new shims and new fasteners on the

front spar vertical stringers on the

wings. Accomplishment of this

modification would eliminate the need

for the repetitive inspections described

in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–

1016, Revision 1.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in these service bulletins is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. The DGAC

classified Airbus Service Bulletin A320–

57–1016, Revision 1, dated December 6,

1995, as mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 97–311–105(B),

dated October 22, 1997, in order to

assure the continued 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 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 inspections

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1016, Revision 1, dated

December 6, 1995, 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 fatigue cracking before it

represents a hazard to the airplane.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1016,

Revision 1, dated December 6, 1995,

specifies 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 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.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Foreign AD

Operators should note that, unlike the

procedures described in French

airworthiness directive 97–311–105(B),

dated October 22, 1997, this proposed

AD would not permit further flight if

fatigue cracks are detected on the front

spar vertical stringers of the wings. The

FAA has determined that, because of the

safety implications and consequences

associated with such fatigue cracking,

any subject front spar vertical stringer

that is found to be cracked must be

repaired prior to further flight in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA or the DGAC (or its delegated

agent).

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 16 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take

approximately 2 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 inspection

proposed by this AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $1,920, or $120 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

modification, rather than continue the

repetitive inspections, it would require

approximately 6 work hours to

accomplish it, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $700 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the optional terminating

modification proposed by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,060

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–18–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes

on which Airbus Modification 21290

(reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–
24762 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1017, Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997) 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 detect and correct fatigue cracking of

the front spar vertical stringers on the wings,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airframe, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total

flight cycles, or within 60 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform an eddy current inspection to

detect fatigue cracking of the front spar

vertical stringers on the wings, in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1016,

Revision 1, dated December 6, 1995.

(1) If no crack is detected, repeat the eddy

current inspection thereafter at intervals not

to exceed 14,000 flight cycles.

(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate; or the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de

l’Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent).

Thereafter, repeat the eddy current

inspection at intervals not to exceed 14,000

flight cycles.

(b) Modification of the front spar vertical

stringers on the wings, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1017,

Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997,

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of this

AD.

(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,

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.

(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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 97–311–

105(B), dated October 22, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11889 Filed 5–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–10–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 Series

Airplanes and Model MD–90–30 and

MD–88 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 all

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–80

series airplanes and Model MD–90–30

and MD–88 airplanes. This proposal

would require a one-time inspection of

the harness assembly of the tailcone

emergency evacuation slide to

determine the diameter of the swaged

balls; reidentification of the harness

assembly; and reinstallation or

replacement of the assembly with a new

assembly, if necessary. This proposal is

prompted by a failed deployment of the

tailcone emergency evacuation slide

during a system test conducted by the

manufacturer. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent failure of the tailcone

emergency evacuation slide to deploy

automatically due to incorrect diameter

of the swaged balls on the wire rope of

the harness assembly.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

10–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

The Boeing Company, Douglas Products

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,

Long Beach, California 90846,

Attention: Technical Publications

Business Administration, Dept. C1–L51

(2–60). This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Sinclair, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5338;

fax (562) 627–5210.

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–10–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–10–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.