36622 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

the LBA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the LBA,

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 alert service bulletins described

previously.

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action. The manufacturer has advised

that it currently is developing a

modification that will positively address

the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD. Once this modification is

developed, approved, and available, the

FAA may consider additional

rulemaking.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 50 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

lubrication, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $12,000, or $240 per

airplane.

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:

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Docket 98–NM–

157–AD.

Applicability: All Model 328–100 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 (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 ice from building up on the

engine control push-pull cables, which could

result in friction or jamming of the engine

controls, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 2 months after the effective date

of this AD, lubricate the engine control pushpull cables in accordance with Dornier Alert

Service Bulletins ASB–328–76–022, dated

December 22, 1997, and ASB–328–76–015,

Revision 3, dated January 9, 1998. Repeat the

lubrication thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 300 flight hours.

(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 §§ 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 German airworthiness directives 1998–

105, dated January 30, 1998, and 1997–148/

3, dated February 26, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 30,

1998.

Stewart R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–17959 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–307–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300, A310, and 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, A310, and A300–

600 series airplanes. This proposal

would require repetitive visual

inspections to detect cracked or broken

door stop fittings on the fuselage frame

of the forward passenger doors, and

replacement of any cracked or broken

fitting with a new fitting. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36623

cracked or broken door stop fittings of

the forward passenger doors, which

could result in failure of the door stop

fittings, consequent reduced structural

integrity of the door support structure,

and sudden loss of cabin pressure in the

passenger compartment.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

307–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 97–NM–307–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–307–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, A310, and A300–600 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that,

during full scale fatigue testing of

Airbus Model A330 and A340 series

airplanes, cracked and broken door stop

fittings were discovered on the fuselage

frame of the left and right forward

passenger doors. The broken door stops

were found between 27,000 and 60,000

simulated flight cycles. As a result of

these findings, another analysis of

fatigue loading on Model A300, A310,

and A300–600 series airplanes was

performed. The results of this analysis

demonstrated that similar fractures also

may occur on these airplanes because of

the design similarities. Such cracked or

broken door stop fittings, if not detected

and corrected, could result in failure of

the door stop fittings, consequent

reduced structural integrity of the door

support structure, and sudden loss of

cabin pressure in the passenger

compartment.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins

A300–53–0309 (for Model A300 series

airplanes); A310–53–2087 (for Model

A310 series airplanes); and A300–53–

6060 (for Model A300–600 series

airplanes); all dated March 19, 1997;

which describe procedures for repetitive

visual inspections to detect cracked or

broken door stop fittings on the fuselage

frame of the forward passenger doors,

and replacement of any cracked or

broken fitting with a new fitting.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletins is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. The DGAC

classified these service bulletins as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 97–124–223(B),

dated June 4, 1997, in order to assure

the continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of § 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 bulletins described

previously, except as discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

the Airbus service bulletins reference

the Master Minimum Equipment List

(MMEL) for appropriate compliance

times for repair of cracked or broken

door stop fittings, this proposed AD

would not permit further flight if cracks

are detected in the door stop fittings.

The FAA has determined that, because

of the safety implications and

consequences associated with such

cracking, any subject door stop fitting

that is found to be cracked, must be

replaced prior to further flight.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 103 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $12,360, 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
36624 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 97–NM–307–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300, A310, and

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 cracked or broken

door stop fittings of the forward passenger

doors, which could result in failure of the

door stop fittings, consequent reduced

structural integrity of the door support

structure, and sudden loss of cabin pressure

in the passenger compartment, accomplish

the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of the total

flight cycles specified in the ‘‘Threshold’’

column of paragraph 1.B.(5) of the Planning

Information of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

53–0309 (for Model A300 series airplanes);

A310–53–2087 (for Model A310 series

airplanes); or A300–53–6060 (for Model

A300–600 series airplanes); all dated March

19, 1997; as applicable; or within 200 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later; accomplish

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.

(1) Perform a visual inspection of the left

and right forward passenger door stop fittings

to detect cracked or broken door stop fittings,

in accordance with the applicable service

bulletin. And

(2) Thereafter, repeat the visual inspection

at the intervals specified in the ‘‘Intervals’’

column of paragraph 1.B.(5) of the Planning

Information of the applicable service

bulletin.

(b) If any cracked or broken door stop

fitting is detected during any inspection

required by paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this

AD, prior to further flight, replace the door

stop fitting with a new fitting in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0309

(for Model A300 series airplanes); A310–53–

2087 (for Model A310 series airplanes); or

A300–53–6060 (for Model A300–600 series

airplanes); all dated March 19, 1997; as

applicable. Thereafter, repeat the visual

inspections at the intervals specified in the

‘‘Intervals’’ column of paragraph 1.B.(5) of

the Planning Information of the applicable

service bulletin.

(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 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 97–124–

223(B), dated June 4, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 30,

1998.

Stewart R. Miller,

Acting Manager,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–17958 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–96–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier

Model 328–100 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 Dornier Model 328–100 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

a one-time inspection of direct current

(DC) power unit 1VE to determine

whether electrical connections are

correctly installed and stud nuts are

correctly torqued, and corrective

actions, if necessary. For certain

airplanes, this proposal also would

require replacement of the existing DC

power unit 1VE with a modified DC

power unit. 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 prevent overheating of

electrical connections, which could

result in electrical arcing and

consequent fire.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

96–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

FAIRCHILD DORNIER, DORNIER

Luftfahrt GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D–

82230 Wessling, Germany. This

information may be examined at the