Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22011

Mr. Satish K. Aggarwal, Senior Program

Manager, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Telephone: 301–415–6005.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 26th day of

April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Lawrence C. Shao,

Director, Division of Engineering Technology,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 95–10725 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–04–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 and A300–600 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Airbus Model A300 and A300–600

series airplanes. This proposal would

require repetitive eddy current

inspections to detect cracks at the aft

spar web of the wings, and repair, if

necessary. This proposal is prompted by

reports indicating that cracks have been

found in the rear spar web of the wings

between ribs 1 and 2 of an in-service

airplane and during testing on the

fatigue test wing; the cracking occurred

due to fatigue-related high shear stress.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent such fatiguerelated cracking, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the wing.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

04–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:

Stephen Slotte, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2797; fax (206) 227–1320.

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 95–NM–04–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.

95–NM–04–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all Airbus Model

A300 and A300–600 series airplanes.

The DGAC advises that cracks have

been found in the rear spar web of the

wings between ribs 1 and 2 of an inservice airplane and during testing of

the fatigue test wing. In both cases, the

cracks spanned across the tip of the

build slot and to the nearest adjacent

fastener hole. Investigation revealed that

such cracking was caused by fatiguerelated high shear stress experienced

during the landing cycle. Further

investigation revealed that the earliest

damage to an in-service airplane was

found on a Model A300–B2 series

airplane that had accumulated 21,500

flight cycles. The crack in the fatigue

test wing was discovered at 50,000

simulated flight cycles, and,

subsequently, was monitored for an

additional 12,000 flight cycles with no

evidence of continued crack growth

from the hole. Such fatigue-related

cracking, if not detected and corrected

in a timely manner, could result in

reduced structural integrity of the wing.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994,

which is applicable to Model A300

series airplanes. This service bulletin

describes procedures for repetitive high

frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspections to detect cracks at the aft

spar web of the wings, and repair, if

necesaary. The DGAC classified this

service bulletin as manadatory and

issued French airworthiness directive

94–207–168(B), dated September 14,

1994, in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

Airbus also has issued Service

Bulletin A300–57–6059, dated August

12, 1994, which is applicable to Model

A300–600 series airplanes. This service

bulletin describes procedures for

repetitive high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) inspections to detect cracks at

the aft spar web of the wings, and

repair, if necesaary. The DGAC plans to

make this service bulletin mandatory

when the Model A300–600 series

airplane fleet leader approaches the

accumulation of 21,600 total flight

cycles, which is the recommended time

for accomplishment of the initial

inspection.

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.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or
22012 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

repetitive eddy current inspections to

detect cracks at the aft spar web of the

wings, and repair, if necessary. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletins described previously.

Operators should note the following

differences between the procedures

specified in the referenced Airbus

service bulletins and the proposed

requirements of this AD:

1. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–

0213, paragraph 1.B.(5)(c),

Accomplishment Timescale, makes

allowances for airplanes that are close to

or have exceeded the specified

inspection threshold to fly an additional

1,000 or 1,800 flight cyles prior to the

initial inspection, depending upon the

number of flight cycles accumulated at

the time that the operator received the

service bulletin. This proposed AD,

however, would allow those airplanes to

fly additional 1,400 flight cycles after

the effective date of this AD. The FAA

considers that this number of flight

cycles is a reasonable number for all

affected airplanes, regardless of when

the service bulletin was received.

2. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–

0213, paragraph 1.B.(5)(d),

Accomplishment Timescale; and Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–57–6059,

paragraph 1.B.(5)(c), Accomplishment

Timescale; provide for adjustments of

the inspection threshold and intervals

specified in the service bulletin, under

certain criteria related to the number

and types of touch-and-go flights that

have been accumulated on the airplane.

The FAA considers that this criteria for

adjustments may cause undue confusion

among affected operators in attempting

to calculate and/or record allowable or

‘‘non-allowable’’ types of touch-and-go

flights and, therefore, has not included

those provisions of the service bulletin

in this proposed rule.

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.

The FAA estimates that 89 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 3 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $16,020, or $180 per

airplane.

The total 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 regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 95–NM–04–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300 and Model

A300–600 series airplanes, certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (f) 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 fatigue-related cracking in the

rear spar web of the wings, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of the

wing, accomplish the following:

(a) For Model A300 B2 series airplanes:

Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total

flight cycles or within 1,400 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracks of

at the aft spar web of the wings, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994.

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(b) For Model A300 B4–103, and B4–2C

series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of

19,000 total flight cycles or within 1,400

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later, perform an

HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the aft

spar web of the wings, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213,

dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000

flight cycles.

(c) For Model A300 B4–200 series

airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 17,000

total flight cycles or within 1,400 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC

inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web

of the wings, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated

August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000

flight cycles.

(d) For Model A300–600 B4–601, B4–603,

B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, and

F4–605R series airplanes: Prior to the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22013

accumulation of 21,600 flight cycles, perform

an HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the aft

spar web of the wings, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059,

dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,700

flight cycles.

(e) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, repair the crack in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213,

dated August 12, 1994, or Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–57–6059, dated August 12,

1994, as applicable; or in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(f) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(g) 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 April 28,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10988 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–31–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Beech Model

400 and 400A 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 Beech Model 400 and 400A

airplanes. This proposal would require

modification of the autopilot and rudder

boost interlock. This proposal is

prompted by a report indicating that the

rudder boost system installed on these

airplanes does not operate correctly

during deployment of a thrust reverser.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent incorrect

operation of the rudder boost system

during deployment of a thrust reverser

and to prevent the autopilot from

exceeding certain bank angle limits;

these conditions could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

31–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

Beech Aircraft Corporation, Commercial

Service Department, P.O. Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale

Vassalli, Aerospace Engineer, Systems

and Equipment Branch, ACE–130W,

FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification

Office, Small Airplane Directorate, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone (316) 946–4132; fax (316)

946–4407.

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 95–NM–31–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.

95–NM–31–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA received a report from the

airplane manufacturer indicating that,

during ground operation, the rudder

boost system installed on Beech Model

400 and 400A airplanes is disabled only

when the left thrust reverser is

deployed. Operation of either the right

or left thrust reverser during ground

operation should disable the rudder

boost system. Additionally, during

flight, the rudder boost system on these

airplanes is disabled when inadvertent

deployment of the left thrust reverser

occurs. However, inadvertent

deployment of a thrust reverser should

not disable the rudder boost system.

The FAA also discovered that, when

landing the airplane with a failed left

engine, use of the right thrust reverser

will result in a rudder boost in the

wrong direction. (When landing with a

failed right engine, use of the left thrust

reverser will disable the rudder boost

system, as it should.) Further,

inadvertent deployment of the left

thrust reverser will result in

disengagement of the rudder boost

system. Should this condition occur

during takeoff, rudder forces could

exceed the limits specified in the

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

These conditions, if not corrected,

could result in reduced controllability

of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2533,

dated October 1994, which describes

procedures for modification of the

autopilot and rudder boost interlock.

The modification entails installing an

autopilot and rudder boost

improvement kit. Installation of the kit

will disable the rudder boost feature

during operation of the thrust reverser

with only one engine operating in order

to alleviate control input requirements.

In addition, the service bulletin

describes removal of a placard if one