27696 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–186–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767 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 Boeing Model 767 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect

improper installation or fatigue damage

of the end cap of the forward engine

mount, and replacement of the end cap

assembly with an improved assembly.

Such replacement, when accomplished,

would terminate the repetitive

inspections. This proposal is prompted

by a report of fatigue cracking of end

cap bolts caused by improper

installation. Subsequent investigation

revealed that properly installed caps

also are subject to early fatigue cracking.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

end cap assembly, which could lead to

separation of the engine from the

airplane in the event of a primary thrust

linkage failure.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97-NM–

186-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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd T. Martin, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2770;

fax (425) 227–1181.

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 97–NM–186–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.

97–NM–186–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received a report of

broken end cap bolts of the forward

engine mount, which were found during

overhaul of a Pratt & Whitney PW4000

engine that had been installed on a

Boeing Model 747–400 series airplane.

Investigation revealed that the end cap

had been installed backwards. A

properly installed end cap assembly

does not normally react any significant

engine thrust loads; it is intended to

provide a secondary load path if the

primary thrust linkage fails. An end cap

installed backwards will react the

engine thrust loads along with the

primary thrust linkage, a condition

which will result in premature fatigue

failure of the end cap or bolts. In

addition, fatigue analysis and testing

have confirmed that a properly installed

end cap would fail within a low number

of flight cycles after a primary thrust

linkage failure. Failure of the end cap

assembly, if not corrected, could lead to

separation of the engine from the

airplane in the event of a primary thrust

linkage failure.

There is a high degree of similarity

between the configurations of the engine

installations on the Model 747–400 and

certain Model 767 series airplanes. The

FAA may consider rulemaking to

address this condition on Model 747–

400 series airplanes; therefore, this

proposed rule is applicable only to

Model 767 series airplanes.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

71A0087, dated October 10, 1996,

which describes procedures for

repetitive visual inspections to detect

improper installation or fatigue damage

of the end cap of the forward engine

mount, and replacement of the end cap

assembly with an improved assembly.

Such replacement would eliminate the

need for the repetitive inspections.

Accomplishment of this replacement, as

described in the alert service bulletin, is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require accomplishment of the actions

specified in the alert service bulletin

described previously, except as

discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Alert Service Bulletin

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

71A0087 divides the affected airplanes

into three groups depending upon the

particular engine configuration of the

affected airplane, and provides different

procedures depending upon group

classification and engine on-wing flight

cycles. Operators should note that the

alert service bulletin specifies that

operators of certain Group 2 airplanes

should contact the manufacturer for

instructions. However, this proposed

AD would not require that the

manufacturer be contacted, but rather

that Group 2 airplanes (regardless of

accumulated on-wing flight cycles) be

treated the same as Group 1 airplanes.

That is, this proposed AD would not

distinguish between the two airplane

groups; therefore, the proposed
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27697

inspections, terminating actions, and

compliance times would be identical for

both Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes.

In addition, some of the compliance

times specified in this proposed rule are

different from those stated in the alert

service bulletin. Specifically, this

proposed AD expresses certain

compliance times in terms of both flight

cycles and flight hours, whereas the

alert service bulletin expresses certain

compliance times in terms of flight

hours only. The reason for this

difference is to account for those

airplanes on which average mission

lengths vary significantly from the fleet

norm.

Additionally, the alert service bulletin

specifies that the visual inspections

required by this proposed AD may be

accomplished in accordance with either

the Boeing 767 Airplane Maintenance

Manual or ‘‘an operator’s equivalent

procedure.’’ However, this proposed AD

requires that the actions be

accomplished in accordance with the

procedures specified in the Chapter 71–

00–00 of the 767 Airplane Maintenance

Manual. An ‘‘operator’s equivalent

procedure’’ may be used only if

approved as an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with the

provisions specified in paragraph (e) of

this proposed AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 239

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

96 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

It would take approximately 37 work

hours per airplane (18.5 work hours per

engine) to accomplish the proposed

inspections, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of this proposed

inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $213,120, or $2,220 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

It would take approximately 135 work

hours per airplane (67.5 work hours per

engine) to accomplish the proposed

replacement of the forward engine

mount end cap and bolts, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $1,000 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of this proposed replacement on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $873,600, or

$9,100 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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:

Boeing: Docket 97–NM–186–AD.

Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes;

as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

767–71A0087, dated October 10, 1996;

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 (f) 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 possible separation of the

engine from the airplane in the event of a

primary thrust linkage failure, accomplish

the following:

(a) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes: Except as

provided by paragraph (c) of this AD,

accomplish paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and

(a)(3) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

71A0087, dated October 10, 1996.

(1) Within 500 flight hours or 300 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later: Accomplish Work

Package 1 (visual inspection of the forward

engine mount). Thereafter, repeat Work

Package 1 at the intervals specified in the

alert service bulletin until the requirements

of either paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this AD

are accomplished.

(2) Prior to the accumulation of 16,000

total flight cycles on any engine or within

500 flight hours or 300 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

latest: Accomplish Work Package 2 (nondestructive test inspection of the forward

engine mount). Thereafter, repeat Work

Package 2 on that engine at the intervals

specified in the alert service bulletin until

the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this

AD are accomplished. Accomplishment of

Work Package 2 constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspections required

by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD for that engine.

(3) Within 3 years after the effective date

of this AD: Accomplish Work Package 3 (end

cap and bolt replacement of the forward

engine mount). Accomplishment of Work

Package 3 constitutes terminating action for

the requirements of this AD.

(b) For Group 3 airplanes: Within 3 years

after the effective date of this AD, accomplish

Work Package 4 (Bolt Replacement) in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 767–71A0087, dated October 10,

1996.

(c) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

767–71A0087, dated October 10, 1996,

specifies that the actions required by this AD

may be accomplished in accordance with an

‘‘operator’s equivalent procedure,’’ the

actions must be accomplished in accordance

with Chapter 71–00–00 of the Boeing 767

Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), as

specified in the alert service bulletin.

(d) If any discrepancy (including an

improperly installed end cap or fatigue

damage to the end cap assembly or thrust

linkage) is found during any inspection

required by this AD, prior to further flight,

accomplish Work Package 3 in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

71A0087, dated October 10, 1996.

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

person shall install a forward engine mount

end cap having part number 310T3026–1 on

any airplane.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that
27698 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle 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 May 14,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13406 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Ch. XVII

Fire Protection for Shipyard

Employment Negotiated Rulemaking

Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Fire Protection for Shipyard

Employment Negotiated Rulemaking

Advisory Committee; notice of open

meeting.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Administration announces a

meeting of the Fire Protection for

Shipyard Employment Negotiated

Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

OSHA invites all interested persons to

attend. The members represent groups

interested in, or significantly affected

by, the outcome of the rulemaking. They

include representatives of shipyards,

labor unions, professional associations,

and government agencies. The

committee will continue its discussions

on a proposed standard to protect

workers from fire hazards in shipyard

employment, including the following

areas: scope and application;

administrative, engineering, and work

practice controls; fire brigades; written

fire plans; technological advances; cost

of fire protection; and the content of

appendices. The committee’s goal is

reach consensus on a proposed standard

and explanatory preamble.

DATES: The meeting dates are Monday,

June 15, 1998 through Wednesday, June

17, 1998 from 8:00 a.m. to about 4:00

p.m. daily. Submit comments, requests

for oral presentations, and requests for

disability accommodations by June 1,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Maritime Institute of Technology

and Graduate Studies (MITAGS), 5700

Hammonds Ferry Road, Linthicum

Heights, MD 21090, telephone (410)

859–5700. Mail comments and requests

for oral presentations to Mr. Joseph V.

Daddura, U.S. Department of Labor,

OSHA, Office of Maritime Standards,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N–

3621, Washington, D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Joseph V. Daddura, Project Officer,

Office of Maritime Standards, OSHA

(202–219–7234, ext. 123). For disability

accommodations, contact Ms. Theda

Kenney (202–219–8061, ext. 100).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Agenda

The committee will focus its

discussions on definitions and on

provisions that address ships fixed fire

protection systems. Potential impacts of

a proposed rule on small employers will

also be addressed.

Public Participation

Interested persons may send written

comments, data, views, or statements for

consideration by the Committee to Mr.

Joseph V. Daddura. Interested persons

may also request the opportunity to

make an oral presentation to the

committee by providing Mr. Daddura

with a summary of the proposed

presentation, an estimate of the time

desired, and a statement of the interest

that the person represents. The

facilitator may allow such presentations

if there is adequate time in the meeting

schedule.

Authority: This document is issued

pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act

of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.) and Section 7(b)

of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970 (29 U.S.C. 656).

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 13th day

of May 1998.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 98–13413 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[KY–218–FOR]

Kentucky Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

a proposed amendment to the Kentucky

regulatory program (hereinafter the

‘‘Kentucky program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The proposed

amendment consists of revisions to the

Kentucky statutes pertaining to bonding

and permit renewal. The amendment is

intended to revise the Kentucky

program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., [E.D.T.], June 19,

1998. If requested, a public hearing on

the proposed amendment will be held

on June 15, 1998. Requests to speak at

the hearing must be received by 4:00

p.m., [E.D.T.], on June 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to speak at the hearing should

be mailed or hand delivered to William

J. Kovacic, Director, at the address listed

below.

Copies of the Kentucky program, the

proposed amendment, a listing of any

scheduled public hearings, and all

written comments received in response

to this document will be available for

public review at the addresses listed

below during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Each requester may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s

Lexington Field Office.

William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675

Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky

40503. Telephone: (606) 233–2494.

Department of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 2

Hudson Hollow Complex, Frankfort,

Kentucky 40601. Telephone: (502)

564–6940.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington

Field Office, Telephone: (606) 233–

2494.