20952 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 39–12141 (66 FR

13424, March 6, 2001), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Boeing: Docket 2001–NM–02–AD.

Supersedes AD 2001–05–05, amendment

39–12141.

Applicability: Model 747 series airplanes,

as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

54A2206, Revision 1, dated February 22,

2001, 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 find and fix discrepancies of the

installation of the midspar fuse pins of the

inboard and outboard strut, which could

result in loss of the secondary retention

capability of the fuse pins, migration of the

fuse pins, and consequent loss of the strut

and engine from the airplane; accomplish the

following:

Restatement of the Requirements of AD

2001–05–05

Inspections/Follow-On Actions

(a) At the time specified in paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Do a

detailed visual inspection to find

discrepancies (e.g., incorrect thread

protrusion, which is less than two threads

protruding from the nut between the nut and

the secondary retention washer; incorrect gap

between the fuse pin primary nut and

secondary retention washer; cracked or

broken torque stripe) of the installation of the

midspar fuse pins of the inboard and

outboard struts, per Figure 2 of Boeing

Service Bulletin 747–54A2206, Revision 1,

dated February 22, 2001.

(1) For airplanes modified per the

production equivalent of one of the AD’s

listed in Table 1 of this AD: Do the

inspection at the later of the times specified

in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this

AD.

(i) Before the accumulation of 8,000 total

flight hours, or within 24 months since

manufacture of the airplane, whichever

occurs first.

(ii) Within 90 days after March 21, 2001

(the effective date of AD 2001–05–05,

amendment 39–12141).

(2) For airplanes modified per one of the

AD’s listed in Table 1 of this AD: Do the

inspection at the later of the times specified

in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this

AD. Table 1 follows:

TABLE 1

AD No. Amendment

No.

AD 95–10–16 .......................... 39–9233

AD 95–13–05 .......................... 39–9285

AD 95–13–06 .......................... 39–9286

AD 95–13–07 .......................... 39–9287

AD 99–10–10 .......................... 39–11163

(i) Within 8,000 flight hours, or within 24

months since doing the modification,

whichever occurs first.

(ii) Within 90 days after March 21, 2001.

Note 2: Where there are differences

between the AD and the service bulletin, the

AD prevails.

Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(A) If no discrepancy is found: Repeat the

inspection at intervals not to exceed 8,000

flight hours or 24 months, whichever is first,

until you do the terminating modification

specified in paragraph (b) of this AD.

(B) If any discrepancy is found, and the

primary nut has backed off and contacts the

secondary retention washer: Before further

flight, do the terminating modification

specified in paragraph (b) of this AD.

(C) If any discrepancy is found, and the

primary nut does not contact the secondary

retention washer: Repeat the inspection at

intervals not to exceed 90 days. Within 18

months after the initial finding, or March 21,

2001, whichever occurs later, do the

terminating modification specified in

paragraph (b) of this AD.

Note 4: Inspections done prior to the

effective date of this AD per Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–54A2206, dated October

19, 2000, are acceptable for compliance with

the inspections required by paragraph (a) of

this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Terminating Action

(b) Within 6 years after the effective date

of this AD: Do the terminating modification

(replacement of the primary nut of the

midspar fuse pin with a new nut, installation

of torque stripe, a detailed visual inspection

of the fuse pin threads for damage, and

replacement, if necessary) per Figure 3 of

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–54A2206,

Revision 1, dated February 22, 2001. Doing

this modification ends the repetitive

inspections required by this AD.

Note 5: Doing the terminating modification

prior to the effective date of this AD per

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2206,

dated October 19, 2000, is acceptable for

compliance with the terminating action

required by paragraph (b) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

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 6: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10344 Filed 4–25–01 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–421–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20953

A321 series airplanes. This proposal

would require performing a general

visual inspection of the outer handle

flap mechanisms of the passenger doors

for the presence of corrosion inhibitor

and for correct operation; cleaning, if

necessary; and greasing. This action is

necessary to prevent blockage of the

outer handle flap in an intermediate

pushed-in position, which may prevent

a passenger door from opening from the

inside of the airplane, thereby delaying

an emergency evacuation. This action is

intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

421–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. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9-

anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments

sent via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–421–AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

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: Dan

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125;

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 action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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 action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–421–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.

2000–NM–421–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,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A319, A320, and A321 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that, on

one Model A320 series airplane, one

passenger door was found impossible to

open from the inside of the airplane.

From the outside of the airplane, the

outer handle flap assembly was found in

an intermediate pushed-in position,

preventing the door from opening from

the inside. No grease could be seen on

the handle mechanism, indicating that

the greasing operation had not been

performed in production on that

airplane, which was recently delivered.

Greasing of the outer handle mechanism

restored normal operation.

Further investigation, performed in

production, showed abnormal presence

of corrosion inhibitor on the outer

handle mechanism on some airplanes,

although no corrosion inhibitor was

found on the outer handle of the above

affected airplane. The presence of

corrosion inhibitor on the outer handle

mechanism, while not expected to cause

the blockage, is considered to be an

additional contributing factor.

The lack of proper greasing, if not

corrected, could prevent a passenger

door from opening from the inside of

the airplane, thereby resulting in a delay

in evacuation during emergency

conditions.

The subject area on certain Model

A319 and A321 series airplanes is

almost identical to that on the affected

Model A320 series airplanes. Therefore,

those Model A319 and A321 series

airplanes may be subject to the same

unsafe condition revealed on the Model

A320 series airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued All Operators Telex

(AOT) A320–52A1106, dated September

28, 2000, which describes procedures

for performing a one-time general visual

inspection of the outer handle flap

mechanisms of the passenger doors for

the presence of corrosion inhibitor and

for correct operation; cleaning, if

necessary; and greasing of the four main

passenger doors. Accomplishment of the

actions specified in the AOT is intended

to adequately address the identified

unsafe condition. The DGAC classified

this AOT as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directive 2000–

519–158(B), dated December 13, 2000,

in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are 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

20954 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the AOT described previously.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Foreign AD

The proposed AD would differ from

the parallel French airworthiness

directive in that it would not specify

performance of Maintenance Review

Board (MRB) Task 52–10–00, Item 3, as

an alternative means of compliance with

this proposed AD. The FAA has

determined that the applicable AOT

provides more precise and detailed

procedures for performing the actions

required to address the identified unsafe

condition.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 63 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $3,780, or

$60 per airplane.

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 proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect 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,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 2000–NM–421–AD.

Applicability: Model A319, A320, and

A321 series airplanes, up to and including

manufacturer’s serial number (MSN) 1261,

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 (b) 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 blockage of the outer door

handle flap in an intermediate pushed-in

position, which may prevent a passenger

door from opening from the inside of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Inspection and Corrective Action

(a) Within 500 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform a one-time

general visual inspection of the outer handle

flap mechanisms of the passenger doors for

the presence of corrosion inhibitor and for

correct operation; remove any corrosion

inhibitor, grease the doors, and check that the

flap comes back correctly, flush with the

door skin, when the handle is in the closed

position; in accordance with Airbus All

Operators Telex (AOT) A320–54A1106, dated

September 28, 2000.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

general visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘A

visual examination of an interior or exterior

area, installation, or assembly to detect

obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This

level of inspection is made under normally

available lighting conditions such as

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight, and may require removal or opening of

access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or

platforms may be required to gain proximity

to the area being checked.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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, Transport

Airplane Directorate, FAA. 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of other approved alternative

methods of compliance with this AD, if any,

may be obtained from the International

Branch, ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 2000–519–

158(B), dated December 13, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10343 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–369–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model L–1011 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise an existing airworthiness