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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20955

directive (AD), applicable to all

Lockheed Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes, that currently requires

modifications of the engine turbine

cooling air panel at the flight engineer/

second officer’s console, pilot’s caution

and warning light panel on the main

instrument panel, and monitoring

system for the engine turbine air

temperature. That AD was prompted by

reports of an undetected fire breaching

the high speed gearbox (HSGB) case on

certain Rolls Royce engines installed on

in-service airplanes due to lack of an

internal fire detection system within the

HSGB. The actions specified by that AD

are intended to prevent undetected fires

originating within the HSGB from

breaching the HSGB case, which could

result in engine damage and increased

difficulty in extinguishing a fire. This

action would remove certain airplanes

from the applicability of the existing

AD.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

369–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–369–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

Lockheed Martin Aircraft & Logistics

Center, 120 Orion Street, Greenville,

South Carolina 29605. This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE–

116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center,

1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450,

Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770)

703–6063 fax (770) 703–6097.

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–369–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–369–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On August 24, 2000, the FAA issued

AD 2000–17–10, amendment 39–11884

(65 FR 53157, September 1, 2000),

applicable to all Lockheed Model L–

1011–385 series airplanes, to require

modifications of the engine turbine

cooling air panel at the flight engineer/

second officer’s console, pilot’s caution

and warning light panel on the main

instrument panel, and monitoring

system for the engine turbine air

temperature. That action was prompted

by reports of an undetected fire

breaching the high speed gearbox

(HSGB) case on certain Rolls Royce

engines installed on in-service airplanes

due to lack of an internal fire detection

system within the HSGB. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent undetected fires originating

within the HSGB from breaching the

HSGB case, which could result in

engine damage and increased difficulty

in extinguishing a fire.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA notes that one of the Rolls Royce

service bulletins that was referenced in

a note in AD 2000–17–10 is effective

only for Rolls Royce RB211–524 series

engines and does not include

procedures for Rolls Royce RB211–22B

series engines. Therefore, there is

insufficient guidance for operators of

Lockheed Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes on which Rolls Royce RB211–

22B series engines are installed to

accomplish the requirements specified

in AD 2000–17–10.

In order to continue addressing the

unsafe condition of Model L–1011–385

series airplanes equipped with Rolls

Royce Model RB211–524 series engines,

we are proposing this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) revision

to reduce the applicability by changing

it from ‘‘all Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes,’’ to apply only to Model L–

1011–385 series airplanes equipped

with Rolls Royce Model RB211–524

series engines.

The manufacturer has advised the

FAA that it is in the process of

developing a Rolls Royce RB211–22B

service bulletin similar to the bulletin

specified for Rolls Royce Model RB211–

524 series engines. We may consider

further rulemaking for Model L–1011–

385 series airplanes equipped with Rolls

Royce Model RB211–22B series engines,

when the new service bulletin is

developed, issued, and approved by the

FAA.

Additionally, the FAA has removed

paragraph (b) of AD 2000–17–10 that

specifies that, ‘‘no person shall install

on any airplane, an engine turbine

cooling air panel assembly, part number

1559672, or a pilot’s caution and

warning light panel assembly on the

main instrument panel, unless it has

been modified in accordance with

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.’’

We note that it is only necessary to

require the installation of the updated

caution and warning light panel

assembly and to prohibit installation of

20956 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the engine turbine cooling air panel

assembly, part number 1559672, after

installation of the monitoring system for

the engine turbine air temperature has

been accomplished. Since the

compliance time for installation of the

engine turbine air temperature is not

until 24 months after the effective date

of the AD, it is unnecessary to specify

the requirements of paragraph (b) of

AD–2000–17–10.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

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

revise AD 2000–17–10 by reducing the

applicability of that AD to specify only

Model L–1011–385 series airplanes

equipped with Rolls Royce Model

RB211–524 series engines. As

previously explained, we have not

retained paragraph (b) of the existing

AD in this proposed rule.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 54 Lockheed

Model L–1011–385 series airplanes of

the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 29 Model

L–1011–385 series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 work hours per engine

(3 engines per airplane) to accomplish

the proposed actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $6,320 per engine, or

$18,960 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the proposed

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$591,600 or $20,400 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 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

removing amendment 39–11884 (65 FR

53157, September 1, 2000), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Lockheed: Docket 2000–NM–369–AD.

Revises AD 2000–17–10, Amendment

39–11884.

Applicability: Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce Model

RB211–524 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 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 undetected fires originating

within the high speed gearbox (HSGB) from

breaching the HSGB case, which could result

in engine damage and increased difficulty in

extinguishing a fire, accomplish the

following:

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2000–

17–10

Modification

(a) Within 24 months after October 6, 2000

(the effective date of AD 2000–17–10,

amendment 39–11884), accomplish the

actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),

and (a)(3) of this AD, in accordance with

Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–77–059,

dated February 25, 1998; or Revision 1, dated

February 2, 1999.

(1) Modify the engine turbine cooling air

panel at the flight engineer/second officer’s

console.

(2) Modify the pilot’s caution and warning

light panel on the main instrument panel.

(3) Modify the monitoring system for the

engine turbine air temperature.

Note 2: Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–77–

059 refers to Rolls Royce Service Bulletins

RB.211–72–C178, dated March 20, 1998; and

RB.211–77–C144, dated August 7, 1998; as

additional sources of service information for

accomplishment of the modification of the

monitoring system for the engine turbine air

temperature.

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, Atlanta

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, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO).

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10342 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U