384 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

the inspections required by paragraph (b) of

this AD. These actions are optional:

(1) Remove power units, P/N TR–991 or

AL–0546, and replace with protected power

units, P/N AL–5117, in accordance with ALC

Installation Instruction (II) No. AL–11025M,

dated March 15, 1992.

(2) Remove power units, P/N TR–992 or

AL–0514, and replace with protected power

unit, P/N AL–5112, in accordance with ALC

II No. AL–11024M, dated March 15, 1992.

(3) Remove power supplies, P/N 18–95D,

and dimmer, P/N 22–311, and replace with

protected power supply, P/N AL–5118, in

accordance with ALC II No. AL–11023M,

Revision A, dated May 20, 1994.

(4) Remove power supplies, P/N AL–0598,

and dimmer, P/N AL–0542, and replace with

protected power supply, P/N AL–5130, in

accordance with ALC II No. AL–11023M,

Revision A, dated May 20, 1994.

(e) 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, New York

Aircraft Certification Office. The request

should be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, New York Aircraft Certification

Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the New York

Aircraft Certification Office.

(f) 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 aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

December 27, 1994.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–58 Filed 1–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–193–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300, A310, 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, A310, and A300–

600 series airplanes. This proposal

would require repetitive mechanical

and electrical inspections to detect

chafing of electrical wiring; and repair

or replacement of discrepant parts, and

repositioning the looms. This proposal

is prompted by reports of wire chafing

in the forward avionic compartment.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent such

chafing, which may lead to a short in

the electrical circuits at the 104VU

panel; this condition could result in

unwanted depressurization, loss of wing

de-icing, and loss of in-flight engine

restart capability.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

193–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 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 94–NM–193–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–193–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, A310, and A300–600 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has

received several reports of wire chafing

in the forward avionic compartment.

Investigation revealed that the chafing

occurred at the top of the 104VU panel

between the extending ladder in the

avionic compartment (in the stowed

position) and the 104VU wire bundles

through the brown plastic cover; this

cover protects the upper part of the

103VU/104VU/105VU panels.

Investigation revealed that this chafing

occurs when some of the attachment

rivets of the ladder support shaft are

sheared due to mishandling of the

ladder. Model A310 and A300–600

series airplanes have significantly more

wires in the subject area than Model

A300 series airplanes. These wire

bundles are sometimes positioned very

close to the ladder. As a result, if the

protective cover is damaged or torn,

there is a risk of the cable chafing, even

without rivet damage, for Model A310

and A300–600 series airplanes. This risk

is greater in a case of cable bundle

ballooning or when tie-wraps are loose

or missing.

Chafing of the electrical wire cables

between the upper part of the 104VU

panel and the extending ladder in the

avionic compartment, if not corrected,

may lead to a short in the electrical

circuits at the 104VU panel, which

could result in unwanted

depressurization, loss of wing de-icing,

and loss of in-flight engine restart

capability.

Airbus has issued All Operators Telex

AOT 24–05, Revision 1, dated June 7,

1994, which describes procedures for

repetitive mechanical and electrical

inspections to detect discrepancies,

repair or replacement of discrepant
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 385

parts, and repositioning the looms. The

mechanical inspections include an

inspection of the protective cover,

ladder support shaft, and attaching

rivets. The electrical inspection

includes an inspection of the electrical

bundles, and an inspection to determine

adequacy of clearance between the

looms and the ladder. The DGAC

classified this all operators telex as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 94–187–163(B),

dated August 17, 1994, in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France.

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

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

repetitive mechanical and electrical

inspections to detect discrepancies; and

repair or replacement of discrepant

parts, and repositioning the looms. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the all

operators telex described previously.

This is considered to be interim

action. The manufacturer has advised

that it currently is developing a

modification that will positively address

the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD. Once this modification is

developed, approved, and available, the

FAA may consider additional

rulemaking.

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 69 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

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,140,

or $60 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

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 94–NM–193–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300, A310, and

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 (b) 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 unwanted depressurization,

loss of wing de-icing, and loss of in-flight

engine restart capability, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 600 flight hours or 6 months

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) of this AD.

(1) Perform mechanical inspections to

detect discrepancies, in accordance with

paragraph 4.2.1. of Airbus All Operators

Telex AOT 24–05, Revision 1, dated June 7,

1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,050 flight hours. If

any discrepancy is detected, prior to further

flight, repair or replace discrepant parts, and

perform an electrical inspection in

accordance with the AOT.

(2) Perform an electrical inspection to

detect discrepancies, in accordance with

paragraph 4.2.2. of Airbus All Operators

Telex AOT 24–05, Revision 1, dated June 7,

1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 18 months. If any

discrepancy is detected, prior to further

flight, repair or replace discrepant parts, and

reposition the looms, in accordance with the

AOT.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators
386 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.

(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

December 28, 1994.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–59 Filed 1–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–197–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 727 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 727 series airplanes, that

currently requires repetitive visual

inspections to detect cracking in the

elevator rear spar and repair, if

necessary. It also provides for an

optional terminating action for the

repetitive inspections. This action

would add an additional one-time

inspection of certain airplanes for

clearance between the shear plate and

the radii of the rear spar; and would

provide additional instructions for the

terminating action. This proposal is

prompted by reports of cracking in the

rear spar of the elevator at the hinge

fitting attachment of the control tab and

reports of loose hinge fittings at the

crack locations. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent cracking of the elevator rear

spar, which could cause excessive free

play of the elevator control tab and

possible tab flutter, and could result in

loss of controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No.94–NM–

197–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:

Walter Sippel, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–121S, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2774;

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–197–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–197–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On October 30, 1987, the FAA issued

AD 87–24–03, amendment 39–5769 (52

FR 43742, November 16, 1987),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 727

series airplanes, to require repetitive

visual inspection to detect cracking of

the elevator rear spar, and repair, if

necessary. That action was prompted by

reports of cracking in the elevator rear

spar at the control tab hinge fitting

attachment, and loose hinge fittings at

the crack locations. The requirements of

that AD are intended to detect cracking

in the elevator rear spar which, if not

corrected, could lead to loss of

controllability of the airplane. –

Since the issuance of that AD, there

have been several reports of cracking in

the radii at the tab hinge fitting of the

rear spar, and reports of loose hinge

fittings at the crack locations on

airplanes that were modified in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

727–55–0087, dated June 20, 1986. The

modification described in that Boeing

service bulletin was considered to be

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirements of AD 87–24–

03. The manufacturer has advised that

the cause of this cracking is attributable

to continued contact between the shear

plate and the radii of the elevator rear

spar. Cracking in this area, if not

corrected, could cause excessive free

play of the elevator control tab and

possible tab flutter, and could result in

loss of controllability of the airplane.–

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Service Bulletin 727–55–0087,

Revision 1, dated March 31, 1994,

which describes procedures for

continued repetitive visual inspections

to detect cracking of the elevator rear

spar, and repair, if necessary. For

airplanes that have been modified in

accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin727–55–0087, dated June 20,

1986, the service bulletin describes

procedures for an additional one-time

inspection to ensure clearance between

the shear plate and the rear spar radii.

Additionally, for all other airplanes,

Revision 1 of this service bulletin

provides instructions for accomplishing

an improved modification or repair that

would eliminate the need for repetitive

inspections.

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

supersede AD 87–24–03 to require

continued repetitive visual inspections

to detect cracking of the elevator rear

spar, and repair, if necessary. However,