Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes), 34563-34566 [E6-9342]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, marked Attn: Women-Owned Small Business Status Appeal. (d) Notice of appeal. The party bringing an appeal must provide notice of the appeal to the contracting activity contracting officer and either the protested concern or original protestor, as appropriate. (e) Grounds for appeal. (1) SBA will re-examine a protest determination only if the appeal demonstrates that there was a clear and significant error in the processing of the protest or if the AA/ GC failed completely to consider a significant fact contained within the information supplied by the protestor or the protested concern. (2) SBA will not consider additional information or changed circumstances that were not disclosed at the time of SBA’s protest decision or that are based on disagreement with the findings and conclusions contained in the determination. (f) Contents of appeal. The appeal must be in writing. The appeal must identify the protest determination being appealed and set forth a full and specific statement as to why the decision is erroneous or what significant fact the AA/GC failed to consider. (g) Completion of appeal after award. An appeal may proceed to completion even after award of the contract that prompted the protest, if so desired by the protested concern, or where the AA/ GC&BD determines that a decision on appeal is meaningful. (h) Decision. The ADA/GC&BD will make a decision within five business days of receipt of the appeal, if practicable, and will base his or her decision only on the information and documentation in the protest record as supplemented by the appeal. SBA will provide a copy of the decision to the contracting officer, the protestor, and the protested concern, consistent with law. The ADA/GC&BD’s appeal decision is the final agency decision. Subpart G—Penalties cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS § 127.700 What penalties may be imposed under this part? Persons or concerns that falsely certify or otherwise misrepresent a concern’s status as an EDWOSB or WOSB for purposes of receiving Federal contract assistance under this part are subject to: (a) Suspension or debarment pursuant to the procedures set forth in part 145 of this title, and in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, subpart 9.4 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations; (b) Administrative and civil remedies prescribed by the False Claims Act, 31 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 U.S.C. 3729–3733 and under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801–3812; (c) Administrative and criminal remedies as described at sections 16(a) and (d) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 645(a) and (d), as amended; (d) Criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001; and (e) Any other penalties as may be available under law. Dated: February 24, 2006. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator. [FR Doc. 06–5354 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2006–25047; Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–028–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 C4– 605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300–600 Series Airplanes) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus Model A300–600 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks of the outer skin of the fuselage at certain frames, and repair or reinforcement of the structure at the frames, if necessary. The existing AD also requires eventual reinforcement of the structure at certain frames, which, when accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would add, for airplanes that were previously reinforced but not repaired in accordance with the existing AD, a onetime inspection for cracking of the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report that the previously required actions were not sufficient to correct cracking before the structural reinforcement was installed. We are proposing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity, and SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 34563 consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Governmentwide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493–2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1622; fax (425) 227–1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2006–25047; Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–028– AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM 15JNP1 34564 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit http:// dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On June 23, 1997, we issued AD 97– 14–02, amendment 39–10059 (62 FR 35072, June 30, 1997), for certain Airbus Model A300–600 airplanes. That AD requires repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks of the outer skin of the fuselage at certain frames, and repair or reinforcement of the structure at the frames, if necessary. That AD also requires eventual reinforcement of the structure at certain frames, which, when accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from a report indicating that fatigue cracks were found in the area of certain frames. We issued that AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airframe and result in rapid decompression of the airplane. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 97–14–02, the manufacturer has reported that the previously required actions were not sufficient to correct cracking before the structural reinforcement was installed. Cracks detected in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, dated March 21, 1995; Revision 01, dated August 25, 1997; or Revision 02, dated May 2, 1999; may not have been corrected in accordance with the temporary repair defined in the service bulletin, which was referenced in AD 97–14–02. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300–53–6037, Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004. The procedures in the service bulletin are essentially the same as the procedures in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6037, dated March 21, 1995, which was referenced as an appropriate source of service VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 information for accomplishing the reinforcement required by AD 97–14– 02. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, Revision 03, dated October 28, 2004. The procedures in the service bulletin are essentially the same as the procedures in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, dated March 21, 1995, which was referenced as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the inspections required by AD 97–14–02. However, this service bulletin specifies that additional work is required for airplanes that were previously modified in accordance with any revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6037. The additional work is an eddy current inspection for cracking of the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30. If no crack is found, the service bulletin specifies that no further action is necessary. If any crack is found, the service bulletin specifies contacting Airbus for repair instructions. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe ´ ´ condition. The Direction Generale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F–2005–002, dated January 5, 2005, and corrected February 16, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD 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 airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC’s findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 97–14–02 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require, for airplanes that were previously reinforced in accordance with any revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6037 without having been first repaired in accordance with any revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, an inspection for PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 cracking of the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30, and repair if necessary. Differences Between the Proposed AD and the French Airworthiness Directive Although Service Bulletin A300–53– 6045, Revision 03, which is cited in the French airworthiness directive, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method that we or the DGAC (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair we or the DGAC approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. This proposed AD would require only the actions for airplanes specified as Configuration 02 in the French airworthiness directive. AD 97–14–02 did not allow for flight with cracks, which is specified for Configuration 01 airplanes in the French airworthiness directive. Therefore, the actions described for Configuration 01 airplanes do not apply to this proposed AD. Changes to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 97–14–02. Since AD 97–14–02 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS Requirement in AD 97–14–02 Paragraph (a) .................... Paragraph (b) .................... Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph (f). Paragraph (g). We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved alternative method of compliance (AMOC) on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. We have revised the applicability to identify the model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models, and to remove the reference to Airbus Modification 8684, which is the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6037, Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004. E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM 15JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance After the original NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. 34565 Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 53 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. ESTIMATED COSTS Action Work hours Parts Inspection (required by AD 97–14–02) ............................................ 1 None Reinforcement (required by AD 97–14–02) ..................................... Inspection (new proposed action) .................................................... 93 1 $7,200 None cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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. 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. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39–10059 (62 FR 35072, June 30, 1997) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2006–25047; Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–028–AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 17, 2006. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 97–14–02. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, F4–605R, F4–622R, and C4–605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus Modification 8683 has been done. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from a report that the previously required actions were not sufficient to correct cracking before the structural reinforcement was installed. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the outer skin of the fuselage at certain frames, which could result in reduced PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Cost per airplane Fleet cost $80, per inspection cycle. $14,640 ..................... $80 ............................ $4,240, per inspection cycle. $775,920. $4,240. structural integrity, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of the Requirements of AD 97– 14–02 (f) Prior to the accumulation of 14,100 total flight cycles, or within 12 months after August 4, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97– 14–02), whichever occurs later, conduct an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, dated March 21, 1995, as revised by Change Notice No. O.A., dated June 1, 1995; or Airbus Service Bulletin A–300–53–6045, Revision 03, dated October 28, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 03 may be used. After the effective date of this AD, the initial eddy current inspection and all applicable repairs required by this paragraph must be done before doing the reinforcement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. (1) If no cracking is found, repeat the eddy current inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles. (2) If any cracking is found that is within the limits specified in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight do the action in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, Revision 03, dated October 28, 2004, may be used for the repair specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD; and the reinforcement option specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD is not allowed in accordance with this paragraph. (i) Repair in accordance with paragraph 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, dated March 21, 1995, as revised by Change Notice No. O.A., dated June 1, 1995; or paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Revision 03, dated October 28, 2004. After the repair, repeat the eddy current inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles. (ii) Reinforce the structure at frames 28 and 29, and at frames 30 and 31, between stringers 29 and 30, in accordance with the E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM 15JNP1 34566 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6037, dated March 21, 1995; or Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004. Such reinforcement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD. (3) If any cracking is found that is outside the limits specified in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight, reinforce the structure at frames 28 and 29, and at frames 30 and 31, between stringers 29 and 30, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 53–6037, dated March 21, 1995; or Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 02 may be used. Such reinforcement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD. (g) Within 5 years after August 4, 1997: Reinforce the structure at frames 28 and 29, and at frames 30 and 31, between stringers 29 and 30, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6037, dated March 21, 1995; or Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 02 may be used. Such reinforcement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD. After the effective date of this AD, the initial eddy current inspection and all applicable repairs required by paragraph (f) of this AD must be done before doing the reinforcement. New Requirements of This AD Inspection and Corrective Action (h) For airplanes that meet the conditions of both paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Within 2,400 flight cycles or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, conduct an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6045, Revision 03, dated October 28, 2004. If no cracking is found: No further action is required by this paragraph. If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction ´ ´ Generale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated agent). (1) Airplanes that were reinforced before the effective date of this AD in accordance with any service bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD. TABLE 1.—REINFORCEMENT SERVICE BULLETINS Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level A300–53–6037 ...................................................................................................................................................... Original .... 01 ............. 02 ............. Date March 21, 1995. February 3, 1999. October 28, 2004. (2) Airplanes that were not inspected and repaired in accordance with any service bulletin specified in Table 2 of this AD. TABLE 2.—INSPECTION AND REPAIR SERVICE BULLETINS Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level A300–53–6045 ...................................................................................................................................................... Original .... 01 ............. 02 ............. 03 ............. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Fish and Wildlife Service Related Information cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS (j) French airworthiness directive F–2005– 002, dated January 5, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6–9342 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018–AT91 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s Lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette Daisy) Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposal to designate critical PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Date March 21, 1995. August 25, 1997. May 2, 1999. October 28, 2004. habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) and the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The draft economic analysis has been completed and we are publishing a notice of availability in the Federal Register and requesting comments. The economic analysis for the prairie species concluded that the potential future costs associated with conservation activities for the species are estimated to range from $25.3 to $52.7 million over 20 years in undiscounted 2006 dollars. Costs are estimated to range from $19.1 to $40.3 million over 20 years, or $1.3 to 2.7 million annually using a three percent discount rate. Costs are estimated to range from $15.3 to $32.6 million over 20 years, or $1.4 to $3.1 annually using a seven percent discount rate. The E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM 15JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34563-34566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9342]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25047; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and 
F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes 
(Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness 
directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus Model A300-600 series 
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive eddy current 
inspections to detect cracks of the outer skin of the fuselage at 
certain frames, and repair or reinforcement of the structure at the 
frames, if necessary. The existing AD also requires eventual 
reinforcement of the structure at certain frames, which, when 
accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD 
would add, for airplanes that were previously reinforced but not 
repaired in accordance with the existing AD, a one-time inspection for 
cracking of the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above 
stringer 30, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD results from a 
report that the previously required actions were not sufficient to 
correct cracking before the structural reinforcement was installed. We 
are proposing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could 
result in reduced structural integrity, and consequent rapid 
decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on 
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Governmentwide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 
France, for service information identified in this proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, 
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or 
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address 
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``Docket No. 
FAA-2006-25047; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-028-AD'' at the 
beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the 
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the 
proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date 
and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will 
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of 
that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our 
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or 
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, 
etc.). You may

[[Page 34564]]

review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://
dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 
available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System 
receives them.

Discussion

    On June 23, 1997, we issued AD 97-14-02, amendment 39-10059 (62 FR 
35072, June 30, 1997), for certain Airbus Model A300-600 airplanes. 
That AD requires repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks 
of the outer skin of the fuselage at certain frames, and repair or 
reinforcement of the structure at the frames, if necessary. That AD 
also requires eventual reinforcement of the structure at certain 
frames, which, when accomplished, terminates the repetitive 
inspections. That AD resulted from a report indicating that fatigue 
cracks were found in the area of certain frames. We issued that AD to 
prevent such fatigue cracking, which could reduce the structural 
integrity of the airframe and result in rapid decompression of the 
airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 97-14-02, the manufacturer has reported that the 
previously required actions were not sufficient to correct cracking 
before the structural reinforcement was installed. Cracks detected in 
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6045, dated March 21, 
1995; Revision 01, dated August 25, 1997; or Revision 02, dated May 2, 
1999; may not have been corrected in accordance with the temporary 
repair defined in the service bulletin, which was referenced in AD 97-
14-02.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6037, Revision 02, dated 
October 28, 2004. The procedures in the service bulletin are 
essentially the same as the procedures in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
53-6037, dated March 21, 1995, which was referenced as an appropriate 
source of service information for accomplishing the reinforcement 
required by AD 97-14-02.
    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6045, Revision 03, 
dated October 28, 2004. The procedures in the service bulletin are 
essentially the same as the procedures in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
53-6045, dated March 21, 1995, which was referenced as an appropriate 
source of service information for accomplishing the inspections 
required by AD 97-14-02. However, this service bulletin specifies that 
additional work is required for airplanes that were previously modified 
in accordance with any revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6037. The additional work is an eddy current inspection for cracking of 
the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30. If no 
crack is found, the service bulletin specifies that no further action 
is necessary. If any crack is found, the service bulletin specifies 
contacting Airbus for repair instructions.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is 
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Direction 
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the 
airworthiness authority for France, mandated the service information 
and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-002, dated January 5, 
2005, and corrected February 16, 2005, to ensure the continued 
airworthiness of these airplanes in France.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    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 airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed 
of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, 
evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is 
necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for 
operation in the United States.
    This proposed AD would supersede AD 97-14-02 and would retain the 
requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require, 
for airplanes that were previously reinforced in accordance with any 
revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6037 without having been 
first repaired in accordance with any revision of Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-53-6045, an inspection for cracking of the fuselage outer 
skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30, and repair if necessary.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the French Airworthiness 
Directive

    Although Service Bulletin A300-53-6045, Revision 03, which is cited 
in the French airworthiness directive, specifies to contact the 
manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, this 
proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method 
that we or the DGAC (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the 
type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, 
and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we 
have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair we or the DGAC 
approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD.
    This proposed AD would require only the actions for airplanes 
specified as Configuration 02 in the French airworthiness directive. AD 
97-14-02 did not allow for flight with cracks, which is specified for 
Configuration 01 airplanes in the French airworthiness directive. 
Therefore, the actions described for Configuration 01 airplanes do not 
apply to this proposed AD.

Changes to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 97-14-02. 
Since AD 97-14-02 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and 
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding 
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in 
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Corresponding requirement in
      Requirement in  AD 97-14-02                this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)..........................  Paragraph (f).
Paragraph (b)..........................  Paragraph (g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure 
for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved 
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) on any airplane to which the 
AMOC applies.
    We have revised the applicability to identify the model 
designations as published in the most recent type certificate data 
sheet for the affected models, and to remove the reference to Airbus 
Modification 8684, which is the modification specified in Airbus 
Service Bulletin A300-53-6037, Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004.

[[Page 34565]]

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    After the original NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have 
used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To 
account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find 
it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from 
$65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, 
below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    This proposed AD would affect about 53 airplanes of U.S. registry. 
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 
comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work 
hour.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action              Work hours     Parts          Cost per airplane               Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (required by AD 97-           1         None  $80, per inspection cycle..  $4,240, per inspection
 14-02).                                                                               cycle.
Reinforcement (required by AD           93       $7,200  $14,640....................  $775,920.
 97-14-02).
Inspection (new proposed                 1         None  $80........................  $4,240.
 action).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to 
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the 
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by 
removing amendment 39-10059 (62 FR 35072, June 30, 1997) and adding the 
following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-25047; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
028-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 17, 
2006.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 97-14-02.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, 
B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F 
airplanes, certificated in any category, except those on which 
Airbus Modification 8683 has been done.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that the previously required 
actions were not sufficient to correct cracking before the 
structural reinforcement was installed. We are issuing this AD to 
prevent fatigue cracking of the outer skin of the fuselage at 
certain frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity, 
and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the 
actions have already been done.

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 97-14-02

    (f) Prior to the accumulation of 14,100 total flight cycles, or 
within 12 months after August 4, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97-
14-02), whichever occurs later, conduct an eddy current inspection 
to detect cracking of the fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A 
above stringer 30, in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6045, dated March 
21, 1995, as revised by Change Notice No. O.A., dated June 1, 1995; 
or Airbus Service Bulletin A-300-53-6045, Revision 03, dated October 
28, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 03 may 
be used. After the effective date of this AD, the initial eddy 
current inspection and all applicable repairs required by this 
paragraph must be done before doing the reinforcement specified in 
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) If no cracking is found, repeat the eddy current inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.
    (2) If any cracking is found that is within the limits specified 
in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight do the action in 
paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD. After the effective 
date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6045, Revision 
03, dated October 28, 2004, may be used for the repair specified in 
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD; and the reinforcement option 
specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD is not allowed in 
accordance with this paragraph.
    (i) Repair in accordance with paragraph 2.D. of the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6045, 
dated March 21, 1995, as revised by Change Notice No. O.A., dated 
June 1, 1995; or paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions 
of Revision 03, dated October 28, 2004. After the repair, repeat the 
eddy current inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 
flight cycles.
    (ii) Reinforce the structure at frames 28 and 29, and at frames 
30 and 31, between stringers 29 and 30, in accordance with the

[[Page 34566]]

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6037, 
dated March 21, 1995; or Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004. Such 
reinforcement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive 
inspections required by this AD.
    (3) If any cracking is found that is outside the limits 
specified in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight, 
reinforce the structure at frames 28 and 29, and at frames 30 and 
31, between stringers 29 and 30, in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6037, 
dated March 21, 1995; or Revision 02, dated October 28, 2004. After 
the effective date of this AD, only Revision 02 may be used. Such 
reinforcement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive 
inspections required by this AD.
    (g) Within 5 years after August 4, 1997: Reinforce the structure 
at frames 28 and 29, and at frames 30 and 31, between stringers 29 
and 30, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 
Service Bulletin A300-53-6037, dated March 21, 1995; or Revision 02, 
dated October 28, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only 
Revision 02 may be used. Such reinforcement constitutes terminating 
action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD. After the 
effective date of this AD, the initial eddy current inspection and 
all applicable repairs required by paragraph (f) of this AD must be 
done before doing the reinforcement.

New Requirements of This AD

Inspection and Corrective Action

    (h) For airplanes that meet the conditions of both paragraphs 
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Within 2,400 flight cycles or 18 
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, 
conduct an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the 
fuselage outer skin at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30, in 
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-53-6045, Revision 03, dated October 28, 2004. If no 
cracking is found: No further action is required by this paragraph. 
If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair the cracking 
using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, 
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction 
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated 
agent).
    (1) Airplanes that were reinforced before the effective date of 
this AD in accordance with any service bulletin specified in Table 1 
of this AD.

                Table 1.--Reinforcement Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airbus Service Bulletin     Revision level             Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-53-6037.................  Original......  March 21, 1995.
                               01............  February 3, 1999.
                               02............  October 28, 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Airplanes that were not inspected and repaired in accordance 
with any service bulletin specified in Table 2 of this AD.

            Table 2.--Inspection and Repair Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airbus Service Bulletin     Revision level             Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-53-6045.................  Original......  March 21, 1995.
                               01............  August 25, 1997.
                               02............  May 2, 1999.
                               03............  October 28, 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for 
this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 
CFR 39.19.
    (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with Sec.  
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the 
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards 
Certificate Holding District Office.

Related Information

    (j) French airworthiness directive F-2005-002, dated January 5, 
2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2006.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-9342 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P