37078 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(A) Leak test the toilet tank anti-siphon

(check) valve or the vacuum breaker check

valve by filling the toilet tank with water/

rinsing fluid to a level such that the bowl is

approximately half full (at least 2 inches

above the flapper in the bowl). Apply 3 PSID

across the valve in the same direction as

occurs in flight. The vent line vacuum

breaker on vacuum breaker check valves

must be pinched closed or plugged for this

leak test. If there is a cap/valve at the flush/

fill line port, the cap/valve must be removed/

open during the test. Check for leakage at the

flush/fill line port for a period of 5 minutes.

(B) Verify proper operation of the vent line

vacuum breaker by filling the tank and

checking at the fill line port for back drainage

after disconnecting the fluid source from the

flush/fill line port. If back drainage does not

occur, replace the vent line vacuum breaker

or repair the vacuum breaker check valve, in

accordance with the component maintenance

manual to obtain proper back drainage. As an

alternative to the test technique specified

above, verify proper operation of the vent

line vacuum breaker in accordance with the

procedures of the applicable component

maintenance manual.

(iii) If a flush/fill ball valve, Kaiser

Electroprecision p/n series 0062–0009, is

installed on the flush/fill line of the subject

lavatory, replace the seals in the flush/fill

ball valve and the toilet tank anti-siphon

valve. Perform a leak test of the toilet tank

anti-siphon valve with a minimum of 3 PSID

across the valve, in accordance with

paragraph (a)(8)(ii)(A) of this AD.

(9) If leakage is discovered during any leak

test or inspection required by paragraph (a)

of this AD, or if evidence of leakage is found

at any other time, accomplish the

requirements of paragraph (a)(9)(i), (a)(9)(ii),

or (a)(9)(iii) of this AD, as applicable.

(i) If a leak is discovered, prior to further

flight, repair the leak. Prior to further flight

after repair, perform the appropriate leak test

as specified in paragraph (a) of this AD, as

applicable. Additionally, prior to returning

the airplane to service, clean the surfaces

adjacent to where the leakage occurred to

clear them of any horizontal fluid residue

streaks; such cleaning must be to the extent

that any future appearance of a horizontal

fluid residue streak will be taken to mean

that the system is leaking again.

Note 3: For purposes of this AD, ‘‘leakage’’

is defined as any visible leakage, if observed

during a leak test. At any other time (than

during a leak test), ‘‘leakage’’ is defined as

the presence of ice in the service panel, or

horizontal fluid residue streaks/ice trails

originating at the service panel. The fluid

residue is usually, but not necessarily, blue

in color.

(ii) If any worn or damaged seal is found,

or if any damaged seal mating surface is

found, prior to further flight, repair or replace

it in accordance with the valve

manufacturer’s maintenance manual.

(iii) In lieu of performing the requirements

of paragraph (a)(9)(i) or (a)(9)(ii): Prior to

further flight, drain the affected lavatory

system and placard the lavatory inoperative

until repairs can be accomplished.

(b) For all airplanes: Unless accomplished

previously, within 5,000 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform the actions

specified in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2)

of this AD:

(1) Install an FAA-approved lever lock cap

on the flush/fill lines for all lavatories. Or

(2) Install a vacuum break, Monogram p/n

series 3765–190, or Shaw Aero Devices p/n

series 301–0009–01, in the flush/fill lines for

all lavatories. Or

(3) Install a flush/fill ball valve, Kaiser

Electroprecision p/n series 0062–0009 on the

flush/fill lines for all lavatories.

(c) For any affected airplane acquired after

the effective date of this AD: Before any

operator places into service any airplane

subject to the requirements of this AD, a

schedule for the accomplishment of the leak

tests required by this AD shall be established

in accordance with either paragraph (c)(1) or

(c)(2) of this AD, as applicable. After each

leak test has been performed once, each

subsequent leak test must be performed in

accordance with the new operator’s schedule,

in accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes that have been maintained

previously in accordance with this AD, the

first leak test to be performed by the new

operator must be accomplished in

accordance with the previous operator’s

schedule or with the new operator’s

schedule, whichever results in the earlier

accomplishment date for that leak test.

(2) For airplanes that have not been

previously maintained in accordance with

this AD, the first leak test to be performed by

the new operator must be accomplished prior

to further flight, or in accordance with a

schedule approved by the FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector (PMI), but within a

period not to exceed 200 flight hours.

(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, Los

Angeles ACO. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA PMI,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(e) 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 July 1,

1998.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18158 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–01–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

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Airbus Model A320–111, –211, –212,

and –231 series airplanes, that currently

requires reinforcement of the tail section

of the fuselage at frames 68 and 69. That

AD was prompted by reports indicating

that the tail section has struck the

runway during takeoffs and landings.

This action would add a requirement for

reinforcement of the tail section of the

fuselage at frames 65 to 67. This action

also would revise the applicability of

the existing AD. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent structural damage to the tail

section when it strikes the runway,

which could result in depressurization

of the fuselage during flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

01–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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37079

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–01–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–01–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On April 2, 1997, the FAA issued AD

97–08–04, amendment 39–9992 (62 FR

17532, April 10, 1997), applicable to

certain Airbus Model A320–111, –211,

–212, and –231 airplanes, to require

reinforcement of the tail section of the

fuselage at frames 68 and 69. That

action was prompted by reports

indicating that the tail section has

struck the runway during takeoffs and

landings. The requirements of that AD

are intended to prevent structural

damage to the tail section when it

strikes the runway; that condition, if not

detected, could result in

depressurization of the fuselage during

flight.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous AD

In the preamble to AD 97–08–04, the

FAA specified that it may consider

additional rulemaking to require

modification of other affected fuselage

frames once new service information

was released by the manufacturer. The

manufacturer has now released such

information, and the FAA has

determined that further rulemaking is

indeed necessary; this proposed AD

follows from that determination.

Explanation of New Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1131, dated

July 24, 1997, which describes

procedures for modification of the tail

section of the airplane by reinforcing the

fuselage structure at frames 65 to 67.

The modification involves strengthening

the fuselage structure at frames C65,

C66, and C67 by installing new lower

frames. Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

The manufacturer also has issued

Revision 1 of Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1110, dated November 27,

1995. The original issue of the service

bulletin was referenced in the existing

AD as an appropriate source of service

information for modification of the tail

section of the airplane at frames 68 and

69. Revision 1 is essentially identical to

the original issue of the service bulletin;

however, it revises references to certain

part numbers. The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

classified these service bulletins as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 97–315–109(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

supersede AD 97–08–04 to continue to

require reinforcement of the tail section

of the fuselage at frames 68 and 69. The

proposed AD would add a requirement

for reinforcement of the tail section of

the fuselage at frames 65 to 67. This

action also would revise the

applicability of the existing AD. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletins described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 118

airplanes of U.S. registry that would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 97–08–04, and retained

in this proposed AD, take approximately

196 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts will

be provided by the manufacturer at no

cost to the operators. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the currently

required actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1,387,680, or $11,760

per airplane.

The new actions that are proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 488 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would be provided by

the manufacturer at no cost to the

operators. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed

requirements of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $3,455,040,

or $29,280 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or 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
37080 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

removing amendment 39–9992 (62 FR

17532, April 10, 1997), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 98–NM–01–AD.

Supersedes AD 97–08–04, Amendment

39–9992.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes

on which Airbus Modification 22764 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 (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 prevent structural damage to the tail

section when it strikes the runway, which

could result in depressurization of the

fuselage during flight, accomplish the

following:

Restatement of Requirement of AD 97–08–04

(a) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–53–1110, dated August 28,

1995: Within 6 years after May 15, 1997 (the

effective date of AD 97–08–04, amendment

39–9992), modify the fuselage by reinforcing

frames 68 and 69 in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1110, dated

August 28, 1995; or Revision 1, dated

November 27, 1995.

New Requirements of this AD

(b) For airplanes other than those

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD: Within

5 years after the effective date of this AD,

modify the fuselage by reinforcing frames 68

and 69 in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–53–1110, dated August 28,

1995, or Revision 1, dated November 27,

1995.

(c) For all airplanes: Within 5 years after

the effective date of this AD, modify the

fuselage by reinforcing frames 65 to 67 in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1131, dated July 24, 1997.

(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, 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.

(e) 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 97–315–

109(B), dated October 22, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 1,

1998.

Stewart R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18157 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–92–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi

Model YS–11 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

Mitsubishi Model YS–11 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking in the manhole doublers of the

lower wing panels; and repair, if

necessary. This proposal also would

require eventual modification of screw

holes in the manhole doublers of the

lower wing panels. 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 in the manhole

doublers of the lower wing panels,

which could result in failure of the wing

structure.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

92–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

Nihon Aeroplane Manufacturing,

Toranomon Daiichi, Kotohire-Cho,

Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan. 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:

William Roberts, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5228; 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