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(superseded by this action) are considered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.
18700 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued All Operators Telex

(AOT) 78–05, Revision 01, dated

February 8, 1995, which describes

procedures for a one-time inspection to

detect defects of the DPV; and

replacement of the defective DPV with

a new DPV, or deactivation of the thrust

reverser system, if necessary. The DGAC

classified this AOT as mandatory and

issued French airworthiness directive

95–052–176(B), dated March 15, 1995,

in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

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.

Explanation of the Requirements of the

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design, the proposed AD would

require a one-time inspection to detect

defects of the DPV. If a defective DPV

is detected, it would be required to be

replaced with a new DPV, or thrust

reverser system would be required to be

deactivated until the DPV is replaced.

The inspection and replacement actions

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the AOT described

previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 43 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 10 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

one-time inspection, 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 $25,800, or $600 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.

Regulatory Impact

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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 95–NM–175–AD.

Applicability: Model A300B4–601, –603,

–605R, A300–F4–605R, and A310–203,

–203C, –204, –304, –308 series airplanes,

equipped with General Electric Model CF6–

80 engines; on which General Electric

Service Bulletin 78–031 has been

accomplished; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 uncommanded deployment and

stowage of the thrust reverser during

maintenance activities, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 600 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform an

inspection to detect defects of the directional

pilot valves (DPV) in accordance with Airbus

All Operators Telex (AOT) 78–05, Revision

01, February 8, 1995.

(1) If no defects are detected, no further

action is required by this AD.

(2) If any defect is detected, prior to further

flight, either replace the defective DPV with

a new DPV in accordance with the AOT; or

deactivate the thrust reverser system in

accordance with approved procedures of the

Minimum Equipment List (MEL) until the

DPV is replaced

(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

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 April 23,

1996.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–10509 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–109–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.