Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18697

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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 has been placed 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), 40101, 40113,

44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

I. A. M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.P.A: Docket No.

95–CE–78-AD.

Applicability: Model P–180 (serial

numbers 1002 and 1004 through 1022),

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 within the next 100

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent the possibility of not getting the

emergency exit door open during an

emergency evacuation of the airplane, which,

if not detected and corrected, could result in

injury to the passengers., accomplish the

following:

(a) Modify the passenger seat cushion in

accordance with Piaggio Service Bulletin

(SB) 80–0043; Original Issue: September 30,

1993.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviations Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Brussels Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, Europe, Africa, and

Middle East Office, c/o American Embassy,

B–1000 Brussels, Belgium. The request shall

be forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Brussels Aircraft Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Brussels Aircraft

Certification Office.

(d) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to I. A. M. Rinaldo

Piaggio, S.p.A., Via Cibrario, 4 16154 Genoa,

Italy; or may examine this document at the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

19, 1996.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–10453 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–55–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede AD 75–26–18, which

currently requires modifying the

landing gear selector cable forward

attachment pin assembly by installing a

safety lock wire on certain The New

Piper Aircraft Inc., (Piper) PA31, PA31P

and PA31T series airplanes. The

proposed action would require the same

action as AD 75–26–18. An incorrect

designation of Piper Model PA31

airplanes as Piper Model PA31–310

airplanes in AD 75–26–18 prompted the

proposed AD action. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent the landing gear

selector cable forward attachment pin

assembly from becoming separated from

the powerpack control arm, which, if

not corrected, could cause loss of

landing gear retraction or extension.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–55–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from The

New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer

Service, 2926 Piper Dr., Vero Beach,

Florida, 32960. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia, 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7362; facsimile (404) 305–

7348.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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
18698 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 95–CE–55–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, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 95–CE–55–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

It has been brought to the attention of

the FAA that AD 75–26–18, which is

applicable to Piper PA31 series

airplanes, should not have listed a Piper

Model PA31–310 airplane. The Piper

Model PA31–310 airplane is not a

recognized model on the Type

Certificate Data Sheet No. A20SO and

the airplane’s data plate for the airplane

subject to the AD states Model PA31,

not Model PA31–310. The concern was

raised that some owners/operators of

Model PA31 airplanes may not have

complied with AD 75–26–18, since the

AD currently describes the airplane as a

Piper Model PA31–310, even though

their serial number falls within the

serial number range in the current AD.

For this reason, the FAA is proposing to

supersede the current AD to change the

model designation in the Applicability

section of the AD from a Piper Model

PA31–310 airplane to Piper Model PA31

airplane.

Piper has issued service bulletin (SB)

No. 488, dated October 24, 1975, which

specifies procedures for modifying the

landing gear selector cable forward

attachment pin assembly.

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to prevent the landing

gear selector cable forward attachment

pin assembly from becoming separated

from the powerpack control arm.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Piper PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T series airplanes of the same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 75–26–18 with a new AD

that would retain the same requirement

as AD 75–26–18 which is modifying the

landing gear selector cable forward

attachment pin assembly, part number

(P/N) 53599–00, by installing 3 inches

of safety lock wire (MS20995C41) onto

the attachment pin assembly, and the

proposed action requires changing the

Applicability section for the model

designations from Piper Model PA31–

310 airplanes to Piper Model PA31

airplanes.

The FAA estimates that 875 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 workhour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately 25 cents per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $52,718.75.

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 action (1) Is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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 has been placed 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 14

CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations 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 Airworthiness Directive (AD),

75–26–18, Amendment 39–2504, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. 95–

CE–55–AD; Supersedes AD 75–26–18,

Amendment 39–2504.

Applicability: PA31, PA31P, and PA31T

series airplanes with the following Model

and serial numbers, certificated in any

category.

Models Serial Nos.

PA–31 and PA–31–

325.

31–7300950 through

31–7612017

PA–31–350 ............... 31–7305048, 31–

7305049, and 31–

7305052 through

31–7652032

PA–31P ..................... 31P–7300128 through

31P–7630005

PA–31T ..................... 31T–7400002 through

31T–7620013.

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 within 50 hours timein-service (TIS) after February 9, 1976

(effective date of AD 75–26–18) or within the

next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later, unless

already accomplished.

To prevent the landing gear selector cable

forward attachment pin assembly from

becoming separated from the powerpack

control arm, which if not corrected could

cause loss of landing gear retraction or

extension, accomplish the following:

(a) Modify the landing gear selector cable

forward attachment pin assembly by

installing a safety lock wire in accordance

with the Instructions section of Piper service

bulletin No. 488, dated October 24, 1975.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199

to operate the airplane to a location where

the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of compliance time that provides

an equivalent level of safety may be approved

by the Manager, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College Park,

Georgia 30337–2748. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18699

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office.

(d) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 75–26–18

(superseded by this action) are considered

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer Service, 2926

Piper Dr., Vero Beach, Florida, 32960; or may

examine this document at the FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(f) This amendment supersedes AD 75–26–

18, Amendment 39–2504. Issued in Kansas

City, Missouri, on April 19, 1996.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–10452 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–175–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300–600 and A310 Series Airplanes

Equipped With General Electric Model

CF6–80 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 Airbus Model A300–600 and

A310 series airplanes. This proposal

would require an inspection to detect

defects of the directional pilot valves

(DPV); and replacement of any defective

DPV with a new DPV, or deactivation of

the thrust reverser system, if necessary.

This proposal is prompted by a report

indicating that, during a maintenance

check, an uncommanded deployment

and stowage of the thrust reverser

occurred due to improperly modified

DPV’s. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

uncommanded deployment and stowage

of the thrust reverser during

maintenance activities, as a result of

improperly modified DPV’s, which

could result in injury to maintenance

personnel or other people on the

ground.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

175–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:

Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2589; fax (206) 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 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–175–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–175–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 certain Airbus

Model A300–600 and A310 series

airplanes, equipped with General

Electric Model CF6–80 engines. The

DGAC advises that it has received a

report indicating that, during a

maintenance check, an uncommanded

deployment and stowage of the thrust

reverser occurred.

Investigation of this incident revealed

that, when the thrust reverser handle

was moved from the ‘‘stow’’ position to

the thrust reverser test point, the

directional pilot valve (DPV) stuck in

the ‘‘open’’ (‘‘deploy’’) position. The air

supply first caused the thrust reverser to

deploy, and then caused the DPV

solenoid to move the DPV to the ‘‘stow’’

direction, which resulted in the thrust

reverser stowing. This same sequence of

events happened when the opposite

engine was tested. When both DPV’s

were replaced and a functional test

carried out, no anomaly was found. This

indicated that the originally-installed

DPV’s apparently were faulty.

Further tests carried out at the Airbus

flight line on a General Electric CF6–

80C2 engine with the faulty DPV’s

installed, demonstrated that deployment

of the thrust reverser could not be

reproduced with the engine running.

The thrust reverser deployment could

be recreated only with a progressive

increase of ground air supply at low

pressure (approximately 10 to 15 psi) to

the ground test point on the airplane.

When direct test pressure of 28 psi was

applied to the DPV, the valve reseated

to the ‘‘stow’’ position. (This same

scenario was confirmed by bench testing

performed by both General Electric and

Allied Signal.)

Further investigation of the two faulty

DPV’s revealed that the valves had been

improperly modified when procedures

specified in General Electric Service

Bulletin 78–031 had been accomplished

on the engine. The DPV armature spring

had not been replaced with a new

stronger spring in accordance with the

service bulletin instructions.

Accordingly, such an improperly

modified DPV, if not corrected, could

result in uncommanded deployment

and stowage of the thrust reverser

during maintenance activities, which

consequently could cause injury to

maintenance personnel or other people

on the ground.