Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 1905

because it is not related to the yaw

damper failure modes. In addition, the

commenter points out that certain

information discussing the rudder

limiting devices is outdated.

The FAA acknowledges that there

may have been some confusion about

including a discussion of the rudder

limiting device; however, the FAA

considers that the confusion would not

be so great as to warrant not including

that information. Furthermore, the

Discussion section of the proposal does

not reappear in the final rule. Therefore,

the FAA finds that no change to this

final rule is necessary.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 2,675 Model

737 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 1,091 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

between 8 and 13 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

will cost approximately $2,500 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be between $3,251,180 and

$3,578,480, or between $2,980 and

$3,280 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the 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 adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–02–01 Boeing: Amendment 39–10283.

Docket 97–NM–45–AD.

Applicability: All Model 737–100, –200,

–300, –400, and –500 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 prevent sudden uncommanded yawing

of the airplane due to potential failures

within the yaw damper system, and

consequent injury to passengers and

crewmembers, accomplish the following:

(a) Remove the yaw damper coupler,

replace the internal rate gyroscope with a

new or overhauled unit, and perform a test

to verify the integrity of the yaw damper

coupler, all in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, at the applicable time

specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this

AD.

(1) For airplanes on which the yaw damper

coupler has accumulated less than 12,000

hours time-in-service since its last

maintenance activity as of the effective date

of this AD: Perform the actions within 6,000

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD; and thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 9,000 hours time-in-service.

(2) For airplanes on which the yaw damper

coupler has accumulated 12,000 or more

hours time-in-service since its last

maintenance activity as of the effective date

of this AD: Perform the actions within 3,000

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD; and thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 9,000 hours time-in-service.

(b) If the yaw damper coupler fails the test

required by paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to

further flight, repair the coupler in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Seattle ACO.

(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, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(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) This amendment becomes effective on

February 17, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

6, 1998.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–714 Filed 1–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–90–AD; Amendment

39–10275; AD 98–01–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

Industrie Model A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Industrie

Model A320 series airplanes, that

requires an inspection to detect
1906 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

moisture and migrated bushings of the

guide fittings of the safety locking pins

of the passenger doors, removal of any

moisture, application of grease, and

reinstallation of any migrated bushing.

This amendment also requires

installation of a greasing nipple on the

guide fitting of the locking pin and on

three telescopic rods on the passenger

doors. This amendment is prompted by

reports of difficulty opening the

passenger doors due to jamming of the

locking pin. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent such

jamming of the locking pin, which

could result in inability to open the

passenger door. This condition, if not

corrected, could impede or delay

passengers from exiting the airplane

during an emergency.

DATES: Effective February 17, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February

17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

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: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Airbus

Industrie Model A320 series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on November 3, 1995 (60 FR 55811).

That action proposed to require a onetime inspection to detect moisture and

migrated bushings of the guide fittings

of the upper safety locking pins of the

passenger doors, removal of any

moisture, application of grease, and

reinstallation of any migrated bushing.

That action also proposed to require

installation of a greasing nipple on the

guide fitting of the locking pin and on

three telescopic rods on the passenger

doors.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request to Extend Compliance Time for

Installation of Greasing Nipple

One commenter requests that the

compliance time for accomplishing the

proposed installation of a greasing

nipple on the three telescopic rods on

the passenger door be extended from the

proposed 15 months to 18 months. The

commenter states that such an extension

will allow the installation to be

accomplished during a regularly

scheduled ‘‘C’’ check, and thereby

eliminate any expenses that would be

associated with special scheduling.

Another commenter requests an

explanation as to how the 15-month

compliance time was established.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

action, the FAA considered the safety

implications, parts availability, and

normal maintenance schedules for

timely accomplishment of the

installation. Further, the proposed

compliance time of 15 months was

arrived with operator, manufacturer,

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC) (the airworthiness authority for

France), and FAA concurrence. In light

of this, and in consideration of the

amount of time that has already passed

since issuance of the original notice, the

FAA has determined that further delay

of this final rule is not appropriate.

However, under the provisions of

paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA

may approve requests for adjustments to

the compliance time if data are

submitted to substantiate that such an

adjustment would provide an acceptable

level of safety.

Request to Require Only Rework of

Safety Guide Pin Fitting

One commenter requests that the

proposed AD be revised to require only

rework applicable to the telescopic rods

of the passenger door if Airbus Industrie

Service Bulletin A320–52–1030 has not

been accomplished. (The proposal

requires that actions be accomplished in

accordance with Airbus Industries

Service Bulletin A320–52–1057.) The

commenter points out that the sliding

arming mechanism telescopic rod has

been the subject of Airbus Industrie

Service Bulletin A320–52–1030, which

describes procedures to detect a

corrosion problem. Since incorporation

of that service bulletin, the commenter

states that it has not had any

discrepancies with any of the telescopic

rods that are subject to the proposed

AD. The FAA does not concur. The FAA

finds that the procedures specified in

Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A320–

52–1030 do not address the same unsafe

condition addressed by this AD (i.e.,

jamming of the locking pin). The FAA

has determined that accomplishment of

the procedures specified in Airbus

Industrie Service Bulletin A320–52–

1057, as proposed, adequately addresses

the identified unsafe condition by

preventing jamming of the locking pin.

However, under the provisions of

paragraph (c) of this AD, operators may

apply for the approval of an alternative

method of compliance, if sufficient

justification is presented to the FAA.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 4

work hours per airplane (1 work hour

per door; 4 doors per airplane) to

accomplish the required inspection, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the inspection required

by this AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $25,920, or $240 per

airplane.

The FAA estimates that it will take

approximately 40 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

installation, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Required

parts will be supplied by the

manufacturer at no cost to operators.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the installation on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $259,200, or $2,400 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the 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 adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 1907

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–01–12 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–10275. Docket 95–NM–90–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes

on which Airbus Industrie Modification No.

24389 (Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin No.

A320–52–1057, dated July 26, 1994) 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 (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent jamming of the upper safety

locking pin on the passenger door, which

could result in inability to open the

passenger door and, consequently, could

impede or delay passengers from exiting the

airplane during an emergency, accomplish

the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 450 hours

time-in-service after one year from the

delivery date of the airplane, or within 450

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform

an inspection to detect moisture or migrated

bushings of the guide fittings of the upper

safety locking pins on each passenger door,

in accordance with Airbus Industrie All

Operators Telex (AOT) 52–06, dated

February 4, 1994.

(1) If any moisture is found in the guide

fitting, prior to further flight, remove the

moisture, dry the guide fitting, fill it with low

temperature grease, and reinstall the guide

fitting with bolts, washers, and nuts in

accordance with the AOT.

(2) If any migrated bushing is found, prior

to further flight, reinstall the bushing using

Loctite 672 in accordance with the AOT. If

the bushing cannot be reinstalled prior to

further flight, the airplane may be operated

without the upper locking pin for an

additional 50 hours time-in-service or three

days after accomplishing the inspection,

whichever occurs first, provided that the

requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i),

(a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)(iii) of this AD are

accomplished. This compliance time applies

to each passenger door.

(i) The connecting rod to the locking shaft

shall be removed.

(ii) The guide fitting shall remain installed.

(iii) The cavity in the guide fitting (which

results from the removal of the upper locking

pin) shall be covered with high speed tape

to prevent moisture ingress.

(b) Within 15 months after the effective

date of this AD, install a greasing nipple on

the guide fitting of the locking pin and on

three telescopic rods on the passenger doors

in accordance with Airbus Industrie Service

Bulletin No. A320–52–1057, dated July 26,

1994.

(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.

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Industrie All Operators Telex

(AOT) 52–06, dated February 4, 1994, and

Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin No. A320–

52–1057, dated July 26, 1994. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 94–239–

060(B), dated November 9, 1994.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

February 17, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 30, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–207 Filed 1–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–247–AD; Amendment

39–10278; AD 98–01–16]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker

Model F27 Mark 050 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Fokker Model F27

Mark 050 series airplanes. This action

requires replacement of the spring tab

balance units in the ailerons and the

inboard aileron hinge bolts and bearings

with improved parts. This amendment

is prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified in this AD are

intended to prevent failure of the

aileron gustlock mechanism and the

inboard aileron hinge bolt, which could

result in inability to operate the

ailerons, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Effective January 28, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the