This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

12913

Vol. 66, No. 41

Thursday, March 1, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–342–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

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to all Model

A320 series airplanes, that currently

requires repetitive measurements of the

deflection of the elevator trailing edge;

inspections of the elevator servo

controls and their attachments; and

replacement of worn or damaged parts,

if necessary. This action would require

periodic inspection of the elevators for

excessive freeplay; repair or

replacement of worn parts, if excessive

freeplay is detected; replacement of the

elevator servo controls with modified

elevator servo controls; and

modification of the elevator neutral

setting. It would also revise the

applicability to include additional

models of airplanes. This proposal is

prompted by additional reports of

severe vibration in the aft cabin of

Model A320 series airplanes and studies

which indicate that the primary cause is

excessive freeplay in the elevator

attachments. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent excessive vibration of the

elevators, which could result in reduced

structural integrity, leading to reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

342–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–342–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: Tim

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, ANM–116,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2141; 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–342–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–342–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On January 29, 1992, the FAA issued

AD 92–04–06, amendment 39–8177, (57

FR 6068, February 20, 1992), applicable

to all Airbus Model A320 series

airplanes. [A correction to that final rule

was published in the Federal Register

on April 1, 1992 (57 FR 11137).] That

AD requires repetitive measurements of

the deflection of the elevator trailing

edge; inspections of the elevator servo

controls and their attachments; and

replacement of worn or damaged parts,

if necessary. The AD was prompted by

reports of in-flight airframe vibrations

resulting from worn bolts and bushings

on the elevator servo attachments. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent excessive freeplay (backlash) at

the elevator trailing edge, resulting in

in-flight airframe vibrations, which

could lead to reduced controllability of

the airplane.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since issuance of AD 92–04–06, there

have been more reports of airframe

vibration. To investigate this problem,

Airbus conducted extensive flight tests

with varying degrees of elevator servo

control backlash (freeplay) and elevator

hinge moments to determine the source

of the elevator vibration. Airbus found

that a combination of elevator freeplay

and low hinge moment caused the

12914 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

vibration. Airbus describes this

vibration as limit cycle oscillation (i.e.,

sustained vibration at a fixed frequency

and limited amplitude).

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

To address this problem, Airbus

issued two service bulletins and made a

change to the Aircraft Maintenance

Manual for the affected airplanes.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A320–27–1111, dated August 16, 1996,

and Revision 01, dated November 14,

2000, which provides procedures to

replace the existing elevator servo

controls with modified elevator servo

controls having improved spherical

bearings. The service bulletin addresses

the problem of elevator freeplay

(backlash) at the servo control eye-end,

which had been found to be due to wear

of the spherical bearings.

Airbus has also issued Service

Bulletin A320–27–1114, Revision 04,

dated December 7, 1999, which

provides procedures to modify the

elevator neutral setting to ensure that

the elevators are sufficiently loaded in

most flight conditions. The Direction

Generale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC),

which is the airworthiness authority for

France, has approved these service

bulletins, but has not classified them as

mandatory.

Finally, Airbus has changed the

Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) to

reduce the allowable elevator freeplay

from 10 millimeters to 7 millimeters.

FAA’s Conclusions

Airbus describes the vibration as a

limit cycle oscillation (resulting from a

nonlinear behavior of the structure) that

is acceptable from a static strength,

fatigue, and controllability standpoint.

Nevertheless, the FAA considers the

vibration to be an aeroelastic stability

problem, which could potentially result

in reduced structural integrity, leading

to reduced controllability of the

airplane. In order to ensure that this

condition does not occur in-service, the

FAA proposes to mandate repetitive

inspections for freeplay per the new

aircraft maintenance manual limits,

modification of the actuator bearings,

and incorporation of the new neutral

setting of the elevator control surface.

U.S. Type Certification of the Airplanes

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

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

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 92–04–06 to require

periodic inspection of the elevators for

excessive freeplay; repair or

replacement of worn parts, if excessive

freeplay is detected; replacement of the

elevator servo controls with modified

elevator servo controls; and

modification of the elevator neutral

setting. These actions would be required

to be accomplished in accordance with

the service bulletins and AMM

described above. The proposed AD

would also revise the applicability to

add Model A319 and A321 series

airplanes, which are similar in design to

Model A320 series airplanes, but were

not on the U.S. registry at the time of

issuance of AD 92–04–06.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 291

airplanes of U.S. registry that would be

affected by this proposed AD.

Inspection for freeplay in the

elevators would take approximately 2

work hours at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. There would be no

charge for required parts. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the initial

inspection proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $34,920, or

$120 per airplane.

Replacement of the elevator servo

controls would take approximately 7

work hours at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. There would be no

charge for required parts. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the

replacement of the elevator servo

controls proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $122,220, or

$420 per airplane.

Change of the elevator neutral setting

would take approximately 12 work

hours at an average labor rate of $60 per

work hour. There would be no charge

for required parts. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the

replacement of the change of the

elevator neutral setting proposed by this

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$209,520, or $720 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or 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 39–8177 (57 FR

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 12915

6068, February 20, 1992), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 2000–NM–342–AD.

Supersedes AD 92–04–06, Amendment

39–8177.

Applicability: All Model A319, A320, and

A321 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 request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (e) 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 excessive vibration of the

elevators, which could result in reduced

structural integrity, leading to reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

Inspection

(a) Within 18 months from the last

inspection for excessive freeplay or within 3

months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later: Inspect the elevators

for excessive freeplay, using a load

application tool and a spring scale assembly,

in accordance with Airbus A319/A320

Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task

27–34–00–200–001, including all changes

through August 1, 2000. Thereafter, repeat

the inspection at intervals not to exceed 18

months.

Repair

(b) If any inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD indicates that the freeplay in

the elevator exceeds 7 millimeters: Prior to

further flight, repair the elevator or servo

controls, in accordance with Airbus A319/

A320 AMM Task 27–34–51–200–001 and/or

27–34–41–200–001, as applicable, including

all changes through August 1, 2000.

Replacement

(c) For the airplanes listed in Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–27–1111, Revision 01,

dated November 14, 2000: Within 18 months

after the effective date of this AD, replace the

elevator servo controls with modified

elevator servo controls, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–27–1111,

dated August 16, 1996; or Revision 01, dated

November 14, 2000.

(d) For the airplanes listed in Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–27–1114, Revision 04,

dated December 7, 1999: Within 18 months

after the effective date of this AD, shift the

elevator neutral setting to minus 0.5 degrees,

nose-up, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–27–1114, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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,

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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(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 airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

22, 2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager,, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–4934 Filed 2–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 432

Trade Regulation Rule Relating to

Power Output Claims for Amplifiers

Utilized in Home Entertainment

Products

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice to reopen comment

period.

SUMMARY: On December 22, 2000, the

Federal Trade Commission (the

‘‘Commission’’) commenced a

rulemaking proceeding and requested

public comments on a supplemental

notice of proposed rulemaking to amend

its Rule relating to Power Output Claims

for Amplifiers Utilized in Home

Entertainment Products (the ‘‘Amplifier

Rule’’). The Commission solicited

comments until February 23, 2001. In

response to a request from an industry

trade association, the Commission

reopens the comment period until

March 30, 2001.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until March 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Trade Commission, Room H–

159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. Comments

should be identified as ‘‘16 CFR Part

432 Comment—Amplifier Rule.’’ If

possible, submit comments both in

writing and on a personal computer

diskette in Word Perfect or other word

processing format (to assist in

processing, please identify the format

and version used). Written comments

should be submitted, when feasible and

not burdensome, in five copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Murphy, Economist, Division of

Consumer Protection, Bureau of

Economics, (202) 326–3524, or Neil

Blickman, Attorney, Division of

Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, (202) 326–3038, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, DC

20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On December 22, 2000, the

Commission published in the Federal

Register a request for public comments

on a supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking to amend its Amplifier Rule,

16 CFR part 432 (65 FR 80798). The

Amplifier Rule was promulgated on

May 3, 1974 (39 FR 15387), to assist

consumers in purchasing power

amplification equipment for home

entertainment purposes by

standardizing the measurement and

disclosure of various performance

characteristics of the equipment.

Specifically, the Federal Register notice

solicited public comments on

Commission proposals to amend the

Amplifier Rule’s testing procedures to

provide appropriate power output

ratings for the recently introduced class

of ‘‘home theater’’ receivers that

incorporate five or more channels of

amplification. Pursuant to the Federal

Register notice, the comment period on

the supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking ended on February 23, 2001.

On February 13, 2001, the

Commission staff received a request for

an extension of the comment period

from the Consumer Electronics

Association (‘‘CEA’’). CEA has indicated

that additional time is required so that

it can conduct consumer research and

industry surveys, which it asserts will

be useful in preparing thorough,

thoughtful responses to the proposals

and questions contained in the Federal

Register notice.

The Commission is aware that the

issues raised by the Federal Register

notice are complex and technical.

Accordingly, to provide sufficient time

for interested parties to prepare useful

comments, the Commission has decided

to extend the deadline for comments on

its supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking until March 30, 2001.

Authority 15 U.S.C. 41–58.