66 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

afforded the opportunity for a hearing

on the petition. After a hearing, the

Secretary would rule on the petition.

The Act provides that the district court

of the United States in any district in

which the handler is an inhabitant, or

has its principal place of business, has

jurisdiction in equity to review the

Secretary’s ruling on the petition,

provided a bill in equity is filed not

later than 20 days after the date of the

entry of the ruling.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant

to the provisions of the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act, the

suspension of the following provision of

the order regulating the handling of

milk in the Southern Illinois-Eastern

Missouri marketing area is being

considered for the period of December

1, 1994, through January 31, 1995:

In § 1032.7(c), the words ‘‘each of’’,

the letter ‘‘s’’ at the end of the word

‘‘months’’, and the words ‘‘through

January’’ and ‘‘for the months of

February’’.

All persons who want to submit

written data, views or arguments about

the proposed suspension should send

two copies of their views to the USDA/

AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation

Branch, Room 2971, South Building,

P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456, by the 7th day after publication of

this notice in the Federal Register. The

period for filing comments is limited to

7 days because a longer period would

not provide the time needed to complete

the required procedures before the

requested suspension is to be effective.

All written submissions made

pursuant to this notice will be made

available for public inspection in the

Dairy Division during regular business

hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

Statement of Consideration

The proposed rule would suspend a

portion of the pool supply plant

definition of the Southern IllinoisEastern Missouri Federal milk order.

The proposed suspension would allow

a supply plant to qualify as a pool plant

during the months of December 1994

and January 1995 if it qualified as a pool

supply plant during the immediately

preceding month of September.

Mid-America Dairymen, Inc. (MidAmerica), and Prairie Farms, Inc.

(Prairie Farms), jointly requested the

proposed suspension. According to the

request letter, Mid-America lost a major

account with a pool distributing plant

regulated under Order 32, effective

December 16, 1994. As a result, MidAmerica and Prairie Farms contend that

much of the producer milk supplying

the distributing plant will no longer be

needed for Class I use. The proponents

assert that the order should not penalize

producers who have historically

supplied the Class I needs of the market

by requiring milk shipments that are not

needed.

Accordingly, it may be appropriate to

suspend the aforesaid provisions from

December 1, 1994, through January 31,

1995.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1032

Milk marketing orders.

The authority citation for 7 CFR Part

1032 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stat 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 94–32290 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–208–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 Series Airplanes Equipped

With General Electric Model CF6–45 or

–50 Series Engines, or Pratt & Whitney

Model JT9D–70 Series Engines

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 Boeing Model 747 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

modification of the nacelle strut and

wing structure, inspections and checks

to detect discrepancies, and correction

of discrepancies. This proposal is

prompted by the development of a

modification of the strut and wing

structure that improves the fail-safe

capability and durability of the strut-towing attachments, and reduces reliance

on inspections of those attachments.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

strut and subsequent loss of the engine.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

208–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (206) 227–2776; fax (206)

227–1181.

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 94–NM–208–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–NM–208–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 67

Discussion

The FAA has received numerous

reports of fatigue cracking and/or

corrosion in the strut-to-wing

attachments on Boeing Model 747 series

airplanes. In two cases, cracking

resulted in the failure of a strut load

path and the subsequent loss of the

number 3 engine and strut. In both

cases, catastrophic accidents occurred

when the number 3 engine and strut

separated from the wing of the airplane

and struck the number 4 engine, causing

it to separate from the airplane.

Investigation into the cause of these

accidents and other reported incidents

has revealed that fatigue cracks and

corrosion in the strut-to-wing

attachments, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, can result

in failure of the strut and subsequent

separation of the engine from the

airplane. Investigation also has revealed

that the structural fail-safe capability of

the strut-to-wing attachment is

inadequate on these airplanes.

The FAA has previously issued 13

AD’s that address various problems

associated with the strut attachment

assembly on Boeing Model 747 series

airplanes that are equipped with

General Electric Model CF6–45 or –50

series engines or Pratt & Whitney Model

JT9D–70 series engines. These AD’s

have required, among other things,

inspections of the strut, strut-to-wing

attachment structure, and wing backup

structure.

Explanation of Service Information

Boeing recently has developed a

modification of the strut-to-wing

attachment structure installed on Model

747 series airplanes equipped with

General Electric Model CF6–45 or –50

series engines or Pratt & Whitney Model

JT9D–70 series engines. This

modification significantly improves the

load-carrying capability and durability

of the strut-to-wing attachments. Such

improvement also will substantially

reduce the possibility of fatigue cracking

and corrosion developing in the

attachment assembly.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

54A2158, dated November 30, 1994,

which describes procedures for

modification of the nacelle strut and

wing structure. This modification

entails the following:

1. Changing the strut by adding a new

titanium dual side load fitting to the

strut aft bulkhead, replacing the aft end

of the midspar web with a new 15–5

stainless steel web, installing new 15–5

stainless steel midspar fittings on the

inboard struts, and replacing the aft

bulkhead assembly and overhauling the

spring beams on the outboard struts;

2. Changing the wing structure by

installing a new dual side load

underwing fitting and new support

fitting, and replacing the end fitting and

installing a new stiffener at the wing

midspar for the outboard strut location

[for certain airplanes, installing new

inboard backup fittings, installing new

titanium outboard underwing fittings at

all strut positions, and replacing the tee

fitting common to the rib at wing station

(WS) 1140; for certain other airplanes,

replacing the tee fitting bolts common to

the rib at WS 1140];

3. Changing the electrical wiring and

hydraulics by rerouting the wire

bundles around the new dual side load

fitting, splicing additional wire to the

wire bundles, and installing new

hydraulic tubes; and

4. Installing the strut with a new

upper link, a new diagonal brace, and

new side links.

This alert service bulletin specifies

that the modification of the nacelle strut

and wing structure is to be

accomplished prior to, or concurrently

with, the terminating actions described

in the service bulletins listed in

paragraph I.C., Table 2, ‘‘Prior or

Concurrent Service Bulletins,’’ on page

7 of this alert service bulletin. These

terminating actions include the

following:

1. Replacement of the diagonal brace,

midspar and upper link fuse pins with

new third generation 15–5 corrosion

resistant steel fuse pins;

2. Replacement of the strut-todiagonal brace aluminum attach fitting

on the inboard engine with a steel

fitting;

3. Installation of a large skin doubler

and frame stiffener in the area of the

precooler exhaust vent;

4. A zero-time overhaul of the

springbeams and rework of certain

fastener holes of the springbeam support

fittings of the outboard strut;

5. Inspection and torque check of

certain fasteners of the strut-to-wing

attachment fittings; and

6. Modification of the rib at wing

station 669.5.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require modification of the nacelle strut

and wing structure, inspections and

checks to detect discrepancies in the

adjacent structure, and correction of

discrepancies. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the alert service

bulletin described previously.

The FAA has determined that long

term continued operational safety will

be better assured by design changes to

remove the source of the problem, rather

than by repetitive inspections. Long

term inspections may not be providing

the degree of safety assurance necessary

for the transport airplane fleet. This,

coupled with a better understanding of

the human factors associated with

numerous continual inspections, has led

the FAA to consider placing less

emphasis on inspections and more

emphasis on design improvements. The

proposed modification requirement is in

consonance with these considerations.

Accomplishment of the modification

of the nacelle strut and wing structure

would terminate the inspections

required by the following AD’s:

AD No. Amendment

No.

Federal Register citation–Date of Publication

94–22–08 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–9057 59 FR 58761 Nov. 15, 1994.

93–17–07 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–8678 58 FR 45827 Aug. 31, 1993.

93–03–14 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–8518 58 FR 14513 Mar. 18, 1993.

92–24–51 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–8439 57 FR 60118 Dec. 18, 1992.

90–20–20 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–6725 55 FR 37859 Sept. 14, 1990.

89–07–15 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–6167 54 FR 11693 Mar. 22, 1989.

87–04–13 R1– ............................................................................................................................... 39–5836 53 FR 2005 .. Jan. 26, 1988.

86–23–01 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–5450 51 FR 37712 Oct. 24, 1986.

86–08–03 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–5289 51 FR 12836 Apr. 16, 1986.

86–07–06 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–5270 51 FR 10821 Mar. 31, 1986.

86–05–11 R1– ............................................................................................................................... 39–5334 51 FR 21900 June 17, 1986.
68 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

AD No. Amendment

No.

Federal Register citation–Date of Publication

80–08–02 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–3738 45 FR 24450 Apr. 10, 1980.

79–17–07 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–3533 44 FR 50033 Aug. 27, 1979.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this requirement.

Cost Estimate

There are approximately 145 Model

747 series airplanes of the affected

design, equipped with General Electric

Model CF6–45 or –50 series engines or

Pratt & Whitney Model JT9D–70 series

engines in the worldwide fleet. The

FAA estimates that 12 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The proposed modification may take

as many as 6,600 to 7,151 work hours

to accomplish, depending upon the

configuration of the airplane. The

manufacturer would incur the cost of

labor, on a pro-rated basis, with 20 years

being the expected life of these

airplanes. The total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is based

on the median age for the fleet of Model

747 series airplanes equipped with

General Electric Model CF6–45 or –50

series engines or Pratt & Whitney Model

JT9D–70 series engines, which is

estimated to be 15 years. The average

labor rate is estimated to be $60 per

work hour. Required parts would be

supplied by the manufacturer at no cost

to the operator. Based on these figures,

the cost impact of this proposal on U.S.

operators is estimated to be between

$3,564,000 ($297,000 per airplane) and

$3,861,540 ($321,795 per airplane).

This cost impact figure does not

reflect the cost of the terminating

actions described in the service

bulletins listed in paragraph I.C., Table

2, ‘‘Prior or Concurrent Service

Bulletins,’’ on page 7 of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–54A2158, dated

November 30, 1994, that are proposed to

be accomplished prior to or

concurrently with the modification of

the nacelle strut and wing structure.

Since some operators may have

accomplished certain modifications on

some or all of the airplanes in its fleet,

while other operators may not have

accomplished any of the modifications

on any of the airplanes in its fleet, the

FAA is unable to provide a reasonable

estimate of the cost of accomplishing

the terminating actions described in the

service bulletins listed in Table 2 of the

Boeing alert service bulletin. As

indicated earlier in this preamble, the

FAA invites comments specifically on

the overall economic aspects of this

proposed rule. Any data received via

public comments to this notice will aid

the FAA in developing an accurate

accounting of the cost impact of the

rule.

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.

The FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, prudent

operators would accomplish the

required actions even if they were not

required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this proposed

AD. As a matter of law, in order to be

airworthy, an aircraft must conform to

its type design and be in a condition for

safe operation. The type design is

approved only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

proposed AD, makes a finding of an

unsafe condition, this means that the

original cost-beneficial level of safety is

no longer being achieved and that the

proposed actions are necessary to

restore that level of safety. Because this

level of safety has already been

determined to be cost-beneficial, a full

cost-benefit analysis for this proposed

AD would be redundant and

unnecessary.

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:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 69

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

BOEING: Docket 94–NM–208–AD.

Applicability: Model 747 series airplanes,

equipped with General Electric Model CF6–

45 or –50 series engines, or Pratt & Whitney

Model JT9D–70 series engines; 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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (d) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the strut and

subsequent loss of the engine, accomplish the

following:

(a) Accomplish the modification of the

nacelle strut and wing structure in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–54A2158, dated November 30,

1994, within 56 months after the effective

date of this AD. All of the terminating actions

described in the service bulletins listed in

paragraph I.C., Table 2, ‘‘Prior or Concurrent

Service Bulletins,’’ on page 7 of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–54A2158, dated

November 30, 1994, must be accomplished in

accordance with those service bulletins prior

to, or concurrently with, the accomplishment

of the modification of the nacelle strut and

wing structure required by this paragraph.

(b) Perform the inspections and checks

specified in paragraph III, NOTES 8, 9, 10,

and 11 of the Accomplishment Instructions

on page 129 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

747–54A2158, dated November 30, 1994,

concurrently with the modification of the

nacelle strut and wing structure required by

paragraph (a) of this AD. Prior to further

flight, correct any discrepancies found in

accordance with the alert service bulletin.

(c) Accomplishment of the modification of

the nacelle strut and wing structure in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–54A2158, dated November 30,

1994, constitutes terminating action for the

inspections required by the following AD’s:

AD No. Amendment

No.

Federal Register citation–Date of Publication

94–22–08 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–9057 59 FR 58761 Nov. 15, 1994.

93–17–07 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–8678 58 FR 45827 Aug. 31, 1993.

93–03–14 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–8518 58 FR 14513 Mar. 18, 1993.

92–24–51 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–8439 57 FR 60118 Dec. 18, 1992.

90–20–20 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–6725 55 FR 37859 Sept. 14, 1990.

89–07–15 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–6167 54 FR 11693 Mar. 22, 1989.

87–04–13 R1 ................................................................................................................................. 39–5836 53 FR 2005 .. Jan. 26, 1988.

86–23–01 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–5450 51 FR 37712 Oct. 24, 1986.

86–08–03 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–5289 51 FR 12836 Apr. 16, 1986.

86–07–06 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–5270 51 FR 10821 Mar. 31, 1986.

86–05–11 R1– ............................................................................................................................... 39–5334 51 FR

21900–.

Jun. 17, 1986.

80–08–02 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–3738 45 FR 24450 Apr. 10, 1980.

79–17–07 ....................................................................................................................................... 39–3533 44 FR 50033 Aug. 27, 1979.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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, 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.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 27, 1994.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 94–32264 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Public

Comment Period on Proposed

Endangered Status for the San Diego

Fairy Shrimp

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces that the

comment period on the proposed rule to

list the San Diego fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta sandiegoensis) as

endangered is reopened through March

6, 1995. The Service has reopened the

comment period to allow all interested

parties to submit additional written

comments on the proposal.

DATES: The public comment period,

which was extended to October 31,

1994, is reopened and closes on March

6, 1995. Comments from all interested

parties must be received by March 6,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

materials may be submitted directly to

the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue

West, Carlsbad, California 92008.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection during

business hours by appointment, at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Field Supervisor, at the address listed

above (telephone 619/431–9440).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 4, 1994, the Service

published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register to list the San Diego

fairy shrimp (Branchinecta

sandiegoensis) as endangered (59 FR

39874). A public hearing was scheduled

on October 19, 1994, to accept public

input on the proposed endangered

status. The comment period was

extended to October 31, 1994, to