40846 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Pilatus PC–12 and PC–

12/45 airplanes of the same type design

registered in the United States, the FAA

is proposing AD action. The proposed

AD would require modifying the

passenger seats and seat rail covers.

Accomplishment of the proposed action

would be required in accordance with

Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 25–006,

dated April 7, 1998.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 11 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the proposed

modification, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts

would be provided by the manufacturer

at no cost to the owners/operators of the

affected airplanes. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $5,280, or $480 per

airplane.

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 action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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 has been placed 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. 98–CE–69–

AD.

Applicability: Models PC–12 and PC–12/45

airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN) 101 through MSN 230, certificated in

any category, that are equipped with the

‘‘corporate commuter cabin layout.’’

Note 1: This ‘‘corporate commuter cabin

layout’’ is a Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. designation

only and the affected airplanes are not

certificated for commuter operation.

Note 2: 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 (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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent passenger injuries because the

passenger seat configuration does not fully

meet current head injury criteria regulations,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD, modify the passenger seats and seat rail

covers in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions section of

Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 25–006, dated

April 7, 1998.

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

person may install, on any affected airplane,

passenger seats and seat rail covers that are

not modified in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions section of

Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 25–006, dated

April 7, 1998.

(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.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(e) Questions or technical information

related to Pilatus Service Bulletin No 25–006,

dated April 7, 1998, should be directed to

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 62 33; facsimile: +41

41 610 33 51. This service information may

be examined at the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Swiss AD HB 98–179, dated June 15, 1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 23,

1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20441 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–65–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft, Inc. SA226 and SA227 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain

Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. (Fairchild)

SA226 and SA227 series airplanes. The

proposed AD would require repetitively

inspecting the wing spar center web

cutout on both wings for cracks between

Wing Station (WS) 8 and WS 17.5, and

immediately repairing any area found

cracked. This repair would eliminate

the need for the repetitive inspections

on that particular wing spar. The

proposed AD is the result of reports of

cracks in the wing spar center web

cutout caused by fatigue due to airplane

maneuvering and wind gusts. The
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40847

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to detect and correct

fatigue cracking of the wing spar center

web cutout area, which could result in

structural failure of the wing spar to the

point of failure with consequent loss of

control of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–CE–65–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Field Support Engineering, Fairchild

Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 790490, San

Antonio, Texas 78279–0490; telephone:

(210) 824–9421; facsimile: (210) 820–

8609. This information also may be

examined at the Rules Docket at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Hung Viet Nguyen, FAA, Airplane

Certification Office, 2601 Meacham

Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–

0150; telephone: (817) 222–5155;

facsimile: (817) 222–5960.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 98–CE–65–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, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 98–CE–65–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

The FAA has received several reports

of cracks in the center web of the wing

main spar on Fairchild SA226 and

SA227 series airplanes. In a recent

occurrence, cracks were found during a

regular maintenance inspection in the

area between Wing Station (WS) 8 and

WS 17.5. The cracks initiated from the

corners of the String #13 cutout with

one crack running towards the upper

spar cap, and another heading in the

opposite direction.

Analysis of the areas that are cracking

on the referenced airplanes indicates

that gust loads and normal airplane

maneuvering are the cause of the cracks.

This condition, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could

result in structural failure of the wing

spar to the point of failure with

consequent loss of control of the

airplane.

Relevant Service Information

Fairchild Aircraft has issued the

following documents:

—Airframe Airworthiness Limitations

Manual ST–UN–M001, Rev. No. C–6,

dated April 7, 1998, which specifies,

among other things, procedures for

inspecting the wing spar center web

cutout for cracks between WS 8 and

WS 17.5 in the area of Stringer 13 on

Models SA227–TT, SA227–AT,

SAA227–AC, and SA227–BC

airplanes;

—Airframe Inspection Manual ST–UN–

M002, Rev. No. A–6, dated December

8, 1997, which specifies, among other

things, procedures for inspecting the

wing spar center web cutout for

cracks between WS 8 and WS 17.5 in

the area of Stringer 13 on Models

SA226–T, SA226–T(B), SA226–AT,

and SA226–TC airplanes;

—Airframe Airworthiness Limitations

Manual ST–UN–M003, Rev. No. 5,

dated April 7, 1998, which specifies,

among other things, procedures for

inspecting the wing spar center web

cutout for cracks between WS 8 and

WS 17.5 in the area of Stringer 13 on

Models SA227–CC and SA227–DC

airplanes;

—SA226/227 Series Structural Repair

Manual, part number (P/N) 27–

10054–079, pages 57 through 90;

Initial Issue: March 1, 1983; Revision

28, dated June 24, 1998. This

document specifies procedures for

repairing cracks at the wing spar

center web cutout between WS 8 and

WS 17.5 in the area of Stringer 13 on

Models SA226–T, SA226–T(B),

SA226–AT, SA226–TC, SA227–TT,

SA227–AT, SA227–AC, and SA227–

BC airplanes; and

—SA227 Series Structural Repair

Manual, P/N 27–10054–127, pages 47

through 60; Initial Issue: December 1,

1991; Revision 7, dated June 24, 1998.

This document specifies procedures

for repairing cracks at the wing spar

center web cutout between WS 8 and

WS 17.5 in the area of Stringer 13 on

Models SA227–CC and SA227–DC

airplanes.

The FAA’s Determination

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to detect and correct

fatigue cracking of the wing spar center

web cutout area. A cracked wing spar

center web cutout area could result in

structural failure of the wing spar to the

point of failure with consequent loss of

control of the airplane.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Fairchild SA226 and

SA227 series airplanes of the same type

design, the FAA is proposing AD action.

The proposed AD would require

repetitively inspecting the wing spar

center web cutout on both wings for

cracks between WS 8 and WS 17.5, and

immediately repairing any area found

cracked. This repair would eliminate

the need for the repetitive inspections

on that particular wing spar.

Accomplishment of the proposed

actions would be required in accordance

with the service information previously

referenced.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 490 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 5 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the proposed initial

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the initial inspection specified
40848 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

in the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $147,000, or $300 per

airplane.

These figures only take into account

the costs of the proposed initial

inspection and do not take into account

the costs of repetitive inspections and

the costs associated with any repair that

would be necessary if corrosion or

delamination damage is found. The

FAA has no way of determining the

number of repetitive inspections an

owner/operator will incur over the life

of the airplane, or the number of

airplanes that will need repairs.

If an affected airplane would have

cracks in both wing spar center webs,

the repair would take 400 workhours to

accomplish at an average labor rate of

$60 per hour. Parts to accomplish this

repair cost approximately $400 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

to repair cracked wing spar center webs

on both sides of the airplane would be

approximately $24,400 per airplane.

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 action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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 has been placed 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Fairchild Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. 98–CE–

65–AD.

Applicability: The following model

airplanes and serial numbers,

certificated in any category:

Model Serial No.

SA226–AT .......... AT001 through AT074.

SA226–TC .......... TC201 through TC419.

SA226–T ............. T201 through T291.

SA226–T(B) ........ T(B)276 and T(B)292

through T(B)417.

SA227–TT .......... TT421 through TT541.

SA227–TT(300) .. TT(300)447, TT(300)465,

TT(300)471,

TT(300)483,

TT(300)512,

TT(300)518,

TT(300)521,

TT(300)527,

TT(300)529, and

TT(300)536.

SA227–AC .......... AC406, AC415, AC416,

and AC420 through

AC785.

SA227–AT .......... AT423 through AT631

and AT695.

SA227–BC .......... BC762, BC764, BC766,

and BC770 through

BC789.

SA227–CC/DC ... CC/DC784 and CC/

DC790 through CC/

DC878.

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 (e) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To detect and correct fatigue cracking of

the wing spar center web cutout area, which

could result in structural failure of the wing

spar to the point of failure with consequent

loss of control of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Upon accumulating 6,500 hours timein-service (TIS) on each wing spar or within

the next 500 hours TIS after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless

already accomplished, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 2,000 hours TIS,

inspect each wing spar center web cutout for

cracks between Wing Station (WS) 8 and WS

17.5. Accomplish this inspection in

accordance with one of the following, as

applicable:

(1) For Models SA227–TT, SA227–AT,

SAA227–AC, and SA227–BC airplanes: In

accordance with Fairchild Airframe

Airworthiness Limitations Manual ST–UN–

M001, Rev. No. C–6, dated April 7, 1998;

(2) For Models SA226–T, SA226–T(B),

SA226–AT, and SA226–TC airplanes: In

accordance with Fairchild Airframe

Inspection Manual ST–UN–M002, Rev. No.

A–6, dated December 8, 1997; or

(3) For Models SA227–CC and SA227–DC

airplanes: In accordance with Fairchild

Airframe Airworthiness Limitations Manual

ST–UN–M003, Rev. No. 5, dated April 7,

1998.

(b) If any crack(s) is/are found during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, repair the crack(s)

in accordance with one of the following, as

applicable. This repair eliminates the

repetitive inspections (2,000 hours TIS

intervals) required in paragraph (a) of this AD

for that particular wing spar.

(1) For Models SA226–T, SA226–T(B),

SA226–AT, SA226–TC, SA227–TT, SA227–

AT, SA227–AC, and SA227–BC airplanes: In

accordance with Fairchild SA226/227 Series

Structural Repair Manual, part number (P/N)

27–10054–079, pages 57 through 90; Initial

Issue: March 1, 1983; Revision 28, dated June

24, 1998; or

(2) For Models SA227–CC and SA227–DC

airplanes: In accordance with Fairchild

SA227 Series Structural Repair Manual, P/N

27–10054–127, pages 47 through 60; Initial

Issue: December 1, 1991; Revision 7, dated

June 24, 1998.

(c) The repetitive inspections required by

paragraph (a) of this AD may be terminated

if the wing spar center web repair specified

in paragraph (b) of this AD has been

accomplished on both the left and right wing

spar. If one wing spar center web has been

repaired, then repetitive inspections are still

required on the other one if the repair has not

been incorporated.

(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.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, FAA, Airplane Certification Office

(ACO), 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort

Worth, Texas 76193–0150. The request shall

be forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Forth Worth ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40849

(f) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the documents referred

to herein upon request to Field Support

Engineering, Fairchild Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box

790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279–0490; or

may examine these documents at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 23,

1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20440 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–206–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 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 Airbus Model A300 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

modification of the struts for the

stowage box located forward of galley 2.

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 failure of the struts,

which could result in displacement of

the stowage box, and possible injury to

passengers and flight crew.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

206–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–206–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–206–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Go ́no ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A300 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that recalculations of stress

analyses have indicated that the

securing struts for the stowage box

located forward of galley 2 do not meet

the required load carrying capacity. The

inadequate load carrying capacity could

allow the struts to fail in the event of an

emergency landing. Such failure of the

struts, if not corrected, could result in

displacement of the stowage box, and

possible injury to passengers and flight

crew.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–25–395, dated

March 22, 1984, as revised by Change

Notices OB, dated June 2, 1985, and OC,

dated June 20, 1988, which describes

procedures for modification of the struts

for the stowage box located forward of

galley 2. The modification includes

removal of the existing struts, and

replacement with improved struts that

have been reinforced by installing

stiffening plates at the attach points.

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 97–359–233(B),

dated November 19, 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.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 24 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

modification, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Required