Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26109

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–61–AD.

Applicability: Model A319, A320, and

A321 series airplanes; on which Airbus

Modification 26065 (reference Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–24–1092, Revision 01, dated

December 24, 1997) has not been

accomplished; 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 a simultaneous cutoff of the

fuel supply to both engines, which could

result in a loss of engine power and

consequent reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, relocate the engine/master 1

relay (11QG) from relay box 103VU to shelf

95VU in the avionics bay, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–24–1092,

dated March 26, 1997, or Revision 01, dated

December 24, 1997.

(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 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.

(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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 97–360–

111(B), dated November 19, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 5,

1998.

D. L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12515 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–82–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

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 all

Airbus Model A300–600 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking of the wing top skin at the front

spar joint; and a follow-on eddy current

inspection 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 fatigue

cracking of the wing top skin at the front

spar joint, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

82–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–82–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–82–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 all Airbus Model

A300–600 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that, during full-scale testing on

a Model A300–600 test article, fatigue

cracks were found between 38,000 and

49,000 simulated flights on the wing top

skin at the front spar joint between ribs

1 and 7. Further investigation has

revealed that the fatigue cracks

originated in the holes of the clearance

fit fasteners on the wing top skin. Such

fatigue cracking, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could
26110 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Proposed Rules

result in reduced structural integrity of

the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A300–57–6045, Revision 1, dated

August 3, 1994 (including Appendix 1,

Revision 1, dated August 3, 1994),

which describes procedures for

repetitive detailed visual inspections to

detect fatigue cracking of the wing top

skin at the front spar joint; a follow-on

eddy current inspection to confirm the

findings of the visual inspection if

cracking is suspected or detected; and

repair of certain cracking.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. The DGAC

classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 97–374–238(B),

dated December 3, 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 actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously, except as discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, unlike the

procedures described in the service

bulletin, this proposed AD would not

permit further flight if cracks are

detected in the wing top skin. The FAA

has determined that, because of the

safety implications and consequences

associated with such cracking, any

subject wing top skin that is found to be

cracked must be repaired or modified

prior to further flight.

Operators also should note that,

although the service bulletin 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.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 54 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 $6,480, 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.

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–82–AD.

Applicability: All Model 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

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 wing top skin at the front spar joint,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total

flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a detailed visual

inspection to detect fatigue cracking of the

wing top skin at the front spar joint, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–57–6045, Revision 1, dated August 3,

1994 (including Appendix 1, Revision 1,

dated August 3, 1994). Repeat the detailed

visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 8,000 flight cycles.

(b) If any cracking is suspected or detected

during any inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD, prior to further flight, perform

an eddy current inspection to confirm the

findings of the visual inspection, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–57–6045, Revision 1, dated August 3,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26111

1994 (including Appendix 1, Revision 1,

dated August 3, 1994). If any cracking is

detected during any eddy current inspection,

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).

(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 97–374–

238(B), dated December 3, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 5,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12514 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–93–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A319, A320, and A321 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 all

Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321

series airplanes. This proposal would

require repetitive inspections for

discrepancies of the lock bolt for the

pintle pin on the main landing gear

(MLG), and follow-on corrective actions,

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 a

rotated, damaged, or missing lock bolt,

which could result in disengagement of

the pintle pin from the bearing, and

consequent collapse of the MLG during

landing.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

93–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–93–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–93–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 all Airbus Model

A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.

The DGAC advises that it has received

two reports indicating that the forward

pintle pin of the main landing gear

(MLG) had migrated forward toward the

wing rear spar. In both instances, the

lock bolt and associated MLG barrel

bushings securing the pintle pin were

missing, which allowed the pintle pin to

migrate forward, although further

movement was prevented by the

incrementally tapered diameter of the

pintle pin. Initial investigations have

indicated that the probable cause of

migration of the pintle pin was due to

ineffective lubrication of the bearing of

the forward pintle pin, which caused

excess load on the lock bolt. The DGAC

further advises that backward migration

of the pintle pin also could occur,

which would allow the pintle pin to

become disengaged and separate from

the pintle pin bearing. Such

discrepancies of the pintle pin, if not

corrected, could result in collapse of the

MLG during landing.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Airbus

All Operator Telex (AOT) 32–17,

Revision 01, dated November 6, 1997,

which describes procedures for

repetitive detailed visual inspections for

discrepancies (rotation, wear, missing or

broken parts) of the lock bolt for the

pintle pin of the MLG, and follow-on

corrective actions, if necessary. The

corrective actions include replacement

of a discrepant lock bolt with a new or

serviceable part, followed by

relubrication of the pintle spherical

bearing. The DGAC classified this AOT

as mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 97–385–112(B),

dated December 17, 1997, in order to

assure the airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.