39540 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 98–072–

036(B), dated February 11, 1998, and

Erratum, dated February 25, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 17,

1998.

D. L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–19623 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–42–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

Industrie 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 all Airbus

Industrie Model A320 series airplanes,

that currently requires a revision to the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

prohibit automatic landings in

configuration 3 (CONF 3). This action

would limit the applicability of the

existing AD, and add a new revision to

the AFM to indicate that automatic

landings in CONF 3 are prohibited and

to specify an increased minimum

runway visual range for airplanes on

which certain modifications have not

been accomplished. This action also

would require eventual replacement of

the existing spoiler elevator computers

with improved parts, and insertion of

new pages into the AFM that correct

landing distances required for automatic

landings in CONF 3. 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 pitch-up of

the airplane due to activation of the

spoilers during an automatic landing,

which, if not corrected, could result in

tail strikes and structural damage to the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

42–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–42–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–42–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On August 26, 1992, the FAA issued

AD 92–19–13, amendment 39–8371 (57

FR 40601, September 4, 1992),

applicable to all Airbus Industrie Model

A320 series airplanes. That AD requires

a revision to the FAA-approved Airbus

A320 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

prohibit automatic landings in

configuration 3 (CONF 3). That action

was prompted by a report that, during

an automatic landing in CONF 3, a

pitch-up due to activation of the

spoilers could result in an excessive

attitude, if not immediately

counteracted by the flightcrew. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent pitch-up of the airplane due to

activation of the spoilers during an

automatic landing, which, if not

corrected, could result in tail strikes and

structural damage to the airplane.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 92–19–13,

the manufacturer has developed a

modification that replaces the existing

spoiler elevator computers (SEC’s) with

new improved parts. Installation of the

new improved SEC’s on Airbus

Industrie Model A320 series airplanes

will reduce the deflection rate of the

ground spoilers during an automatic

landing, which will reduce the tendency

of the airplane to pitch up during

landing. Once accomplished, the

modification eliminates the need to

prohibit automatic landings in CONF 3.

Since the issuance of AD 92–19–13,

the manufacturer also has developed

another revision to the AFM that

corrects landing distances required for

automatic landings in CONF 3.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Airbus

A319/320/321 AFM Temporary

Revision (TR) 9.99.99/02, Issue 02,

dated April 8, 1997, which indicates

that automatic landings in CONF 3 are

prohibited, and which specifies an

increased minimum runway visual

range for all airplanes on which Airbus

Industrie Modification 20126

(installation of a head up display) or

Modification 21055 (installation of a

paravisual indicator) has not been

accomplished. The TR also advises the

flightcrew that, during an automatic

landing in a configuration other than

CONF 3, the flightcrew should monitor

the pitch attitude and be prepared to

counteract any pitch-up that occurs

immediately after touchdown.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39541

Airbus Industrie also has issued

Service Bulletin A320–27–1073, dated

January 20, 1995, and Service Bulletin

A320–27–1081, Revision 2, dated

September 6, 1995, which describe

procedures for removing the existing

SEC’s from two positions in the aft

electronics rack and one position in the

forward electronics rack, and installing

new, improved SEC’s in the same

positions in the aft and forward

electronics racks. This modification will

reduce the deflection rate of the ground

spoilers during an automatic landing,

and consequently will reduce the

tendency of the airplane to pitch up

during landing.

Associated with the modifications

specified by these service bulletins,

Airbus Industrie also has issued AFM

Section 5.06.00, page 06, dated February

10, 1996, and page 6A, dated January

20, 1997. This AFM section identifies

corrections to landing distances

required for automatic landings

performed in CONF 3. Operators should

note that Section 5.06.00, pages 06 and

6A, changes the measurement units of

the landing distances required for

automatic landings from meters to feet.

Operators should ensure that the units

of measurement used in Section 5.06.00,

pages 06 and 6A, are consistent with the

units used in their operations.

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

classified TR 9.99.99/02, Issue 02, as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 93–203–

049(B)R3, dated July 2, 1997, in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France. The French

airworthiness directive also provides for

the replacement of the SEC’s with

improved parts, and insertion of AFM

Section 5.06.00, pages 06 and 6A, into

the AFM as optional actions, which, if

accomplished, would provide for

removal of TR 9.99.99/02 from the AFM.

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 92–19–13 to require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletins and AFM

revisions described previously, except

as discussed below. Accomplishment of

the replacement of the SEC’s with new,

improved parts and insertion of AFM

Section 5.06.00, pages 06 and 6A, into

the AFM terminates the need for TR

9.99.99/02 in the AFM.

This proposed action also would limit

the applicability of the AD to only those

airplanes on which Airbus Industrie

Modification 23132, 24348, or 24511

has not been accomplished.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Foreign AD

The proposed AD would differ from

the parallel French airworthiness

directive in that it would mandate

replacement of the existing SEC’s with

new, improved parts. The French

airworthiness directive provides for that

action as optional.

Mandating the terminating action is

based on the FAA’s determination that,

in this case, long-term continued

operational safety would be better

assured by a modification to remove the

source of the problem, rather than by

revising flight procedures. The source of

the unsafe condition (pitch-up of the

airplane due to activation of the spoilers

during an automatic landing) is in the

design of the SEC’s installed on the

airplane, in that the SEC’s fail to operate

in a safe manner when the flightcrew

selects CONF 3 during landing. In this

particular case, there is no way to

physically prevent the selection of

CONF 3 during landing, unlike in other

situations in which the inadvertent

positioning of a switch or lever can be

remedied by application of a limiter or

guard to prevent or restrict operation of

that switch or lever.

While revising flight procedures

ensures that the flightcrew is informed

that an unsafe condition may exist if

CONF 3 is selected during landing, it

does not remove the source of that

unsafe condition. Human factors (e.g.,

variations in flightcrew training and

familiarity with the airplane, flightcrew

awareness in the presence of other

hazards, flightcrew fatigue) may allow

inadvertent selection of CONF 3 during

landing and result in the unsafe

condition. Thus, revisions to flight

procedures are not considered adequate

to provide the degree of safety assurance

necessary for the transport airplane

fleet. Consideration of these factors have

led the FAA to mandate replacement of

the existing SEC’s with new, improved

parts in order to eliminate the unsafe

condition associated with an automatic

landing in CONF 3.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 93 airplanes

of U.S. registry that would be affected

by this proposed AD.

The incorporation of the temporary

revision into the AFM that is currently

required by AD 92–19–13, and retained

in this proposed AD, takes

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of this proposed

requirement of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $5,580, or

$60 per airplane.

The incorporation of the new

temporary revision into the AFM that is

proposed in this AD would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of this proposed

requirement of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $5,580, or

$60 per airplane.

The replacement of the SEC’s that is

proposed in this AD action would take

approximately 3 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

operator. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of this proposed

requirement of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $16,740, or

$180 per airplane.

The incorporation of AFM Section

5.06.00, pages 06 and 6A, into the AFM

that is proposed in this AD action

would take approximately 1 work hour

per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of this proposed requirement of this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$5,580, or $60 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
39542 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

removing amendment 39–8371 (57 FR

40601, September 4, 1992), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 97–NM–42–AD.

Supersedes AD 92–19–13, Amendment

39–8371.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes

on which Airbus Industrie Modification

23132, 24348, or 24511 has not been

accomplished; 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 pitch-up of the airplane due to

activation of the spoilers during an automatic

landing, which, if not corrected, could result

in tail strikes and structural damage to the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 60 days after October 9, 1992

(the effective date of AD 92–19–13,

amendment 39–8371), revise the Limitations

Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to include the following

statement. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

‘‘Use of automatic landing in configuration

3 (CONF 3) is prohibited.’’

(b) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the FAA-approved Airbus

A320 AFM by inserting Airbus A319/320/321

AFM Temporary Revision 9.99.99/02, Issue

02, dated April 8, 1997, into the AFM. After

revising the AFM, the AFM revision required

by paragraph (a) of this AD may be removed

from the AFM.

(c) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, accomplish the actions

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of

this AD. After the actions specified by

paragraph (c) of this AD have been

accomplished, the AFM revision required by

paragraph (b) of this AD (Airbus A320 AFM

Temporary Revision 9.99.99/02, Issue 02,

dated April 8, 1997), may be removed from

the AFM.

(1) Replace the existing spoiler elevator

computers (SEC’s) in the aft and forward

electronics racks with new, improved SEC’s,

in accordance with Airbus Industrie Service

Bulletin A320–27–1081, Revision 2, dated

September 6, 1995; or A320–27–1073, dated

January 20, 1995; as applicable.

(2) After the accomplishment of the actions

specified by paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, prior

to further flight, revise Section 5.06.00 of the

Airbus A320 AFM by inserting Section

5.06.00, page 06, dated February 10, 1996,

and page 6A, dated January 20, 1997.

Note 2: Operators should ensure that the

units in which the distance measurements

are listed in AFM Section 5.06.00, pages 06

and 6A, are consistent with the units of

measurement that the operators use in their

operations.

(d)(1) 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.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

92–19–13, amendment 39–8371, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 3: 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 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 93–203–

049(B)R3, dated July 2, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 17,

1998.

D. L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–19624 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

ARCHITECTURAL AND

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191

Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor

Developed Areas; Meeting of

Regulatory Negotiation Committee

AGENCY: Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

ACTION: Regulatory negotiation

committee meeting.

SUMMARY: The Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (Access Board) has established a

regulatory negotiation committee to

develop a proposed rule on accessibility

guidelines for newly constructed and

altered outdoor developed areas covered

by the Americans With Disabilities Act

and the Architectural Barriers Act. This

document announces the dates, times,

and location of the next meeting of the

committee, which is open to the public.

DATES: The committee will meet on:

Tuesday, August 11, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to

5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, August 12, 1998,

8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, August

13, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and

Friday, August 14, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to

3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The committee will meet at

the Loma Linda Community Center,

1700 Yale, SE, Albuquerque, New

Mexico.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Greenwell, Office of Technical

and Information Services, Architectural

and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000,

Washington, DC, 20004–1111.

Telephone number (202) 272–5434