31338 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457

Grape Crop Provisions; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the final regulation which

was published in the Federal Register

on Monday, June 23, 1997 (62 FR

33737–33744). The regulation pertains

to the Grape Crop Provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Meyer, Insurance Management

Specialist, Research and Development,

Product Development Division, Federal

Crop Insurance Corporation, United

States Department of Agriculture, 9435

Holmes Road, Kansas City, MO 64131,

telephone (816) 926–7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulation that is the subject

of this correction was intended to

provide policy changes to better meet

the needs of the insured and include the

current Grape Crop Insurance

Provisions with the Common Crop

Insurance Policy for ease of use and

consistency of terms.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulation

contains an error which may prove to be

misleading and needs to be corrected to

reflect the correct spelling of the word

‘‘volcanic’.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

Crop insurance, Grape crop

provisions.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 457 is

corrected by making the following

correcting amendment:

PART 457—COMMON CROP

INSURANCE REGULATIONS;

REGULATIONS FOR THE 1994 AND

SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT YEARS

1. The authority citation for part 457

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p).

§ 457.138 [Corrected]

2. In § 457.138, paragraph 10(a)(7) is

corrected to read as follows: ‘‘Volcanic

eruption; or’’.

Signed in Washington D.C. on June 1,

1998.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 98–15303 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–ANE–14–AD; Amendment

39–10568; AD 98–12–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Allison

Engine Company Model AE 3007A

Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to Allison Engine Company

Model AE 3007A turbofan engines. This

action requires reprogramming the Full

Authority Digital Engine Control

(FADEC) to the latest, improved

software version. This amendment is

prompted by reports of inflight engine

shutdowns due to inadequate fault

accommodation logic. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent inflight engine shutdowns due

to inadequate fault accommodation

logic.

DATES: Effective June 24, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 24,

1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

August 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–ANE–

14–AD, 12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: ‘‘9-adengineprop@faa.dot.gov’’. Comments

sent via the Internet must contain the

docket number in the subject line.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Allison

Engine Company, P.O. Box 420, Speed

Code U–15, Indianapolis, IN 46206–

0420; telephone (317) 230–6674. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyri

Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer,

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 2300

East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL

60018; telephone (847) 294–7836, fax

(847) 294–7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

has received reports of 5 inflight engine

shutdowns on Allison Engine Company

AE 3007 series turbofan engines due to

inadequate fault accommodation logic.

The current version of software has an

error which leads to large fan speed

transients during Main Metering Valve

(MMV) fault accommodation of an in

range failure. Also, the current version

of software does not include

modifications to the fault

accommodation logic for an ITT sensor

fault, to prevent a single failure in the

ITT indication system from causing an

in flight shutdown. This condition, if

not corrected, may result in inflight

engine shutdowns due to inadequate

fault accommodation logic.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

the technical contents of Allison Engine

Company Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)

No. AE 3007A–A–73–014, Revision 3,

dated May 21, 1998, that describes

procedures for reprogramming the

FADEC software to the latest, improved

version VI.2 [Allison Software Part

Number 23068660; Allison FADEC

assembly (with Software VI.2 installed)

Part Number 23068661].

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other engines of the same

type design, this AD is being issued to

prevent inflight engine shutdowns. This

AD requires, at 200 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, reprogramming

the FADEC software to the latest,

improved version VI.2. The

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD

have been coordinated with the Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office. The actions

are required to be accomplished in

accordance with the SB described

previously.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31339

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

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–ANE–14–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866. It

has been determined further that this

action involves an emergency regulation

under DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,

1979). If it is determined that this

emergency regulation otherwise would

be significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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:

98–12–12 Allison Engine Company:

Amendment 39–10568. Docket 98–ANE–

14–AD.

Applicability: Allison Engine Company

Model AE 3007A turbofan engines, installed

on but not limited to Embraer EMB–145

series aircraft.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine 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 engines 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 prevent inflight engine shutdowns due

to inadequate fault accommodation logic,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 200 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, reprogram the

FADEC software to version VI.2, [Allison

Software Part Number 23068660; Allison

FADEC assembly (with Software VI.2

installed) Part Number 23068661] in

accordance with the Accomplishment

Instructions of Allison Engine Company

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AE 3007A–

A–73–014, Revision 3, dated May 21, 1998.

(b) After completing the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this AD, and then prior to

further flight, revise the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual by incorporating

Embraer Flight Manual AFM–145/1153,

Revision 14, dated May 7, 1998.

(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, Chicago

Aircraft Certification Office. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification

Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Chicago

Aircraft Certification Office.

(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 aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) The actions required by this AD shall

be done in accordance with the following

Allison Engine Company SB:

Document No. Revision Pages Date

AE 3007A–A–73–014 ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1–6 May 21, 1998.

Total pages: 6.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Allison Engine Company, P.O. Box 420,

Speed Code U–15, Indianapolis, IN 46206–

0420; telephone (317) 230–6674. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12

New England Executive Park, Burlington,

MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 24, 1998.
31340 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

May 29, 1998.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15088 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–ANE–05; Amendment 39–

10563; AD 98–12–07]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt &

Whitney JT8D Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to Pratt & Whitney JT8D

series engines, that currently requires a

determination of the utilization rate and

coating type of the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th,

11th, and 12th stage high pressure

compressor (HPC) disks, and removal,

inspection for corrosion, and recoating

of those HPC disks based on utilization

rate. This amendment shortens the

inspection interval for certain low

utilization disks. This amendment is

prompted by reports of an additional

uncontained 9th stage HPC disk failure

due to corrosion pitting. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent fracture of the HPC disks, which

can result in uncontained release of

engine fragments, inflight engine

shutdown, and airframe damage.

DATES: Effective August 10, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin

No. 6038, Revision 5, dated August 17,

1994, as listed in the regulations, was

approved previously by the Director of

the Federal Register as of November 28,

1994 (59 FR 49175, September 27,

1994).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East

Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860)

565–6600, fax (860) 565–4503. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

New England Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–

5299; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Spinney, Aerospace

Engineer, Engine Certification Office,

FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone

(781) 238–7175, fax (781) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding airworthiness directive

(AD) 94–20–01, Amendment 39–9020

(59 FR 49175, September 27, 1994),

applicable to Pratt & Whitney (PW)

JT8D–1, –1A, –1B, –7, –7A, –7B, –9,

–9A, –11, –15, –15A, –17, –17A, –17R,

and –17AR turbofan engines was

published in the Federal Register on

September 17, 1997 (62 FR 48800). That

action proposed the same record search

and inspection program but on a more

conservative inspection schedule, and

that low utilization disks, regardless of

the disk coating, would have to be

inspected at an interval of 7 years since

new, replate, or corrosion (YRSNRC) in

accordance with the engine manual.

Currently, the inspection interval for

low utilization disks is based on the

disk coating and the maximum

inspection interval ranges from 9 to 11

YRSNRC depending on the part number

and the type of coating. The high

utilization disk inspection interval

remained unchanged.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Four commenters, comprising of 3

operators and the manufacturer, state

that the proposed superseding rule

should be withdrawn, based on the

manufacturer’s risk analysis, the lack of

a defined unsafe condition, the lack of

technical substantiation of the rule, and

the belief that the current management

plan is adequate to address the HPC

disk corrosion issue. The FAA does not

concur. The National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB) has determined

from their investigation of the December

1995 accident that the most probable

cause of the HPC disk failure was a

fatigue crack which originated at a

corrosion pit. The failed disk was last

stripped of its protective coating and

replated 8 years prior to the failure. The

current AD and management plan

requires reinspection of the disk at 10

year intervals. Therefore, the unsafe

condition has been identified as the

failure of a low utilization HPC disk

prior to its currently mandated

inspection interval. Risk analysis is

used to develop a management plan to

lower the probability of future events

from occurring and cannot preclude a

future event from occurring. The FAA

establishes its confidence in the

manufacturer’s risk assessment by

thoroughly reviewing the assumptions

and modeling involved in developing

the risk values. Although the FAA

concurs that the manufacturer’s risk

assessment produces risk values that fall

within typically acceptable limits, the

FAA concludes that a more conservative

corrective action is necessary. The

acceptable risk limits are meant to be

limits, and not typical values for

allowable future risk. Establishing 7

years as the maximum inspection

interval provides lowered risk without

an onerous effect on the inspection and

removal schedule, and, therefore,

represents a desirable tradeoff.

Furthermore, the reduced interval

captures the concern of allowing a

maximum inspection 25% in excess (10

years) of the recently-observed failure (8

years). While studies have determined

that low utilization engines are more

susceptible to corrosion because of the

longer intervals between engine

overhauls and the increased time spent

stationary, subject to condensation, the

FAA has determined that the statistical

modeling of the onset and growth of a

corrosion pit does not provide the level

of confidence for the FAA to accept a

longer interval. Therefore, the 7 year

inspection interval was determined by

the circumstances of the December 1995

accident. The disk failed 8 years after

replating, therefore in order to lower the

risk of a similar event 7 years was

chosen as the maximum inspection

interval. This provides an adequate

margin of safety against an incident

occurring 8 years after replating.

Three commenters state that the

economic analysis is inadequate, as the

costs don’t take into account required

early shop visits, costs associated with

aircraft down time, and industry’s

inability to perform engine overhauls

due to shortages of engine parts. The

FAA does not concur as these costs do

not directly stem from the AD’s required

actions. This AD does not require any

additional action over and above the

original AD; however, the FAA has

chosen to adopt the original economic

analysis for inclusion in this revision.

The indirect costs associated with

performing the maintenance actions

required by this AD are not directly

related to this proposed rule, and,

therefore, are not addressed in the

economic analysis for this rule. A full

cost analysis for each AD, including

such indirect costs, is not necessary

since the FAA has already performed a

cost benefit analysis when adopting the