Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes, 47752-47754 [E6-13647]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47752
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 160 / Friday, August 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
one comment letter from the Manager of
Technical Services, State of Ohio’s
Bureau of Radiation Protection. The
commenter was generally in favor of
granting the petition. However, the
commenter noted that the problem with
remote communication systems is that
they are likely to fail or become
overloaded under extreme conditions,
although the probability of having two
remote incidents (irradiator and
communication systems) occurring at
one time is highly improbable for the
unattended operation of a panoramic
irradiator. In addition, the commenter
suggested that an onsite security guard
or other non-operator personnel could
be trained to summon assistance as
required without needing the operator.
The comments were considered in the
development of the NRC’s decision on
this petition.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying the petition for
the following two reasons:
1. In February 1993, the NRC
amended its regulations to add 10 CFR
Part 36, ‘‘Licenses and Radiation Safety
Requirements for Irradiators,’’ to specify
radiation safety requirements and
licensing requirements for the use of
licensed radioactive materials in
irradiators. After the rule became
effective, the NRC received numerous
licensee event reports that described
failures or non-functions of source
mechanisms and related systems that
needed intervention by personnel who
had received training described in the
regulations on how to respond to
alarms. The information reported to the
NRC from 1990 to 2006 about events at
irradiator facilities indicates no
reduction in the number of events or the
nature of events. The NRC determined
that the data on events do not support
the petitioner’s request or indicate that
the requirements should be revised.
Rather, the NRC continues to believe
that there is a need for individuals to be
onsite to evaluate and respond to such
emergencies, as well as to ensure dayto-day radiation safety.
2. The NRC does not believe that
reliance on an automated
communication system to notify a
remote human operator via an electronic
mechanism provides the same level of
safety as currently provided by an onsite
operator and/or a second individual
who is trained to respond to irradiator
alarms. This issue was previously raised
in comments on the proposed rule for
10 CFR Part 36. The Statements of
Consideration (SOC) for the final rule
(58 FR 7715; February 9, 1993) state
that, for 10 CFR 36.65, ‘‘a considerable
number of comments objected to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:38 Aug 17, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposed requirements as excessive.’’ A
commenter suggested that an irradiator
with an automatic conveyor system
should be able to operate with only an
operator present and an automatic
telephone dialing device for responding
to alarms. Another commenter
suggested that the irradiator should be
able to operate unattended but with an
automatic telephone dialing device. The
SOC state that the NRC did not accept
either suggestion because the NRC
believed that automatic conveyer
systems have enough malfunctions to
require that an operator be present at the
site. In addition, the NRC believed that
the operator should have some backup
in case of problems.
The petitioner has not provided a
sufficient basis from which to conclude
that this NRC judgement is no longer
correct. Specifically, no new
information has been provided by the
petitioner that would warrant revising
the existing regulations. The existing
NRC regulations provide the basis for
reasonable assurance that the common
defense and security and public health
and safety are adequately protected.
For the reasons cited in this
document, the NRC denies this petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day
of August, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. E6–13632 Filed 8–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25634; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–143–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A300 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed
AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by an airworthiness authority of
another country to identify and correct
an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The proposed AD would
require actions that are intended to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
address the unsafe condition described
in the MCAI.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by September 18,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to comment on this proposed
AD:
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://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.
For service information identified in
the proposed AD, contact Airbus, 1
Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France.
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:
Streamlined Issuance of AD
The FAA is implementing a new
process for streamlining the issuance of
ADs related to MCAI. We are
prototyping this process and specifically
request your comments on its use. You
can find more information in FAA draft
Order 8040.2, ‘‘Airworthiness Directive
Process for Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information,’’ which is
currently open for comments at https://
www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs. This
streamlined process will allow us to
adopt MCAI safety requirements in a
more efficient manner and will reduce
safety risks to the public.
This process continues to follow all
existing AD issuance processes to meet
legal, economic, Administrative
Procedure Act, and Federal Register
requirements. We also continue to
follow our technical decision-making
processes in all aspects to meet our
responsibilities to determine and correct
unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated
products.
This proposed AD references the
MCAI and related service information
that we considered in forming the
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 160 / Friday, August 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
engineering basis to correct the unsafe
condition. The proposed AD contains
text copied from the MCAI and for this
reason might not follow our plain
language principles.
The comment period for this
proposed AD is open for 30 days to
allow time for comments on both the
process and the AD content. In the
future, ADs using this process will have
a 15-day comment period, because the
airworthiness authority and
manufacturer have already published
the documents on which we based our
decision, making a longer comment
period unnecessary.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
data, views, or arguments regarding this
proposed AD. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include the docket number,
Docket No. FAA–2006–25634;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–143–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 are also inviting
comments, views, or arguments on the
new MCAI process. 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
https://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
concerning this proposed AD.
Discussion
´ ´
The Direction Generale de l’Aviation
Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, has
issued French Airworthiness Directive
F–2005–157, dated September 14, 2005
(referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to
correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states
that the refined study of an in-service
event has evidenced the need to perform
a periodic test of pitch trim system 2. In
the conditions of overriding the
automatic pitch torque limiter, the
clutch of the pitch trim servo-motor 1 is
opened so that electric pitch trim
system 1 will disconnect. The question
is pending about the availability of the
system 2 and its capability to take over
the pitch trim function, particularly
during a go-around. Failure of pitch trim
system 2 to deflect the trimmable
horizontal stabilizer (THS) at maximum
rate could result in loss of high-speed
trim and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:38 Aug 17, 2006
Jkt 208001
MCAI renders mandatory a periodic test
to ensure the availability of the pitch
trim system 2 and its possibility to
deflect the THS at high speed of trim.
You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the docket.
Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin
A300–22–0121, dated July 11, 2005. The
actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the
MCAI.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of the Proposed AD
This product is manufactured outside
the United States 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
agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral
airworthiness agreement, the State of
Design’s airworthiness authority has
notified us of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We have
examined the airworthiness authority’s
findings, evaluated all pertinent
information, and determined an unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on all products of this type
design. We are issuing this proposed AD
to correct the unsafe condition.
Differences Between the Proposed AD
and the MCAI or Service Information
We have reviewed the MCAI and
related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But
we might have found it necessary to use
different words from those in the MCAI
to ensure the AD is clear for U.S.
operators and is enforceable in a U.S.
court of law. In making these changes,
we do not intend to differ substantively
from the information provided in the
MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed
different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA
policies. Any such differences are
described in a separate paragraph of the
proposed AD. These proposed
requirements, if ultimately adopted, will
take precedence over the actions copied
from the MCAI.
Costs of Compliance
Based on the service information, we
estimate that this proposed AD would
affect about 29 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take
about 1 work hour per product to do the
periodic test and 3 work hours to do the
repair and follow-on test, and that the
average labor rate is $80 per work hour.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47753
Required parts would cost $0 per
product. Where the service information
lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have
assumed that there will be no change for
these costs. As we do not control
warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher
than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be
$2,320, or $80 per product.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies 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 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.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket that
contains the proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
47754
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 160 / Friday, August 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
received, and other information on the
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or in
person at the Docket Management
Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800) 647–5227) is located at the street
address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
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 Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2006–25634;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–143–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments on this
airworthiness directive (AD) by September
18, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus A300 aircraft,
all certified models and all serial numbers,
certificated in any category; except for
Models A300 B4–203 and A300 B2–203 in
forward facing crew cockpit certified
configuration.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Reason
(d) The refined study of an in-service event
has evidenced the need to perform a periodic
test of pitch trim system 2. In the conditions
of overriding the automatic pitch torque
limiter, the clutch of the pitch trim servomotor 1 is opened so that electric pitch trim
system 1 will disconnect. The question is
pending about the availability of the system
2 and its capability to take over the pitch trim
function, particularly during a go-around.
Failure of pitch trim system 2 to deflect the
trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) at
maximum rate could result in loss of highspeed trim and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. For such
reason, this AD renders mandatory a periodic
test to ensure the availability of the pitch
trim system 2 and its possibility to deflect the
THS at high speed of trim.
18:38 Aug 17, 2006
(f) When complying with this AD, do the
following: Although the Accomplishment
Instructions of the referenced service bulletin
describes procedures for submitting certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.
Other FAA AD Provisions
[Amended]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(e) Unless already done, do the following
actions except as stated in paragraph (f)
below:
(1) Within 250 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD: Perform an
operational test of pitch trim system 2 in high
speed of trim configuration and if system 2
does not function as specified in the
instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–
22–0121, dated July 11, 2005; before further
flight, return the system to correct operating
condition in accordance with the instructions
of the service bulletin.
(2) The operational test, followed if
necessary by the corrective action described
in the paragraph above, is to be repeated at
intervals not exceeding 1,000 flight hours in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300–22–0121, dated July
11, 2005.
FAA AD Difference
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
§ 39.13
Actions and Compliance
Jkt 208001
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Tom Stafford,
Aerospace Safety Engineer, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone
(425) 227–1622; fax (425) 227–1149; has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) Notification of Principal Inspector:
Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
the appropriate principal inspector in the
FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding
District Office.
(3) Return to Airworthiness: When
complying with this AD, perform FAAapproved corrective actions before returning
the product to an airworthy condition.
Related Information
(h) This AD is related to MCAI French
airworthiness directive F–2005–157, dated
September 14, 2005, which references Airbus
Service Bulletin A300–22–0121, dated July
11, 2005, for information on required actions.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August
7, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–13647 Filed 8–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25609; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–263–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 777–200 and –300 Series
Airplanes Equipped With Rolls-Royce
RB211–TRENT 800 Series Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 777–200 and –300
series airplanes. This proposed AD
would require revising the airplane
flight manual to provide the flightcrew
with new ground procedures for
shedding core ice during long taxi
periods in freezing fog. For airplanes
unable to perform the shedding
procedure after prolonged taxiing in
freezing fog, this proposed AD would
require certain investigative and
corrective actions. This proposed AD
results from reports of engine surges and
internal engine damage due to ice
accumulation during extended idle
thrust operation in ground fog icing
conditions. We are proposing this AD to
prevent internal engine damage due to
ice accumulation and shedding, which
could cause a shutdown of both engines,
and result in loss of control of the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by October 2, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://
dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions
for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://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 Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47752-47754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13647]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2006-25634; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-143-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an airworthiness
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The proposed AD would require actions
that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
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.
For service information identified in the proposed AD, contact
Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
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:
Streamlined Issuance of AD
The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance
of ADs related to MCAI. We are prototyping this process and
specifically request your comments on its use. You can find more
information in FAA draft Order 8040.2, ``Airworthiness Directive
Process for Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information,'' which is
currently open for comments at https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs.
This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety
requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to
the public.
This process continues to follow all existing AD issuance processes
to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal
Register requirements. We also continue to follow our technical
decision-making processes in all aspects to meet our responsibilities
to determine and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated
products.
This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service
information that we considered in forming the
[[Page 47753]]
engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD
contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow
our plain language principles.
The comment period for this proposed AD is open for 30 days to
allow time for comments on both the process and the AD content. In the
future, ADs using this process will have a 15-day comment period,
because the airworthiness authority and manufacturer have already
published the documents on which we based our decision, making a longer
comment period unnecessary.
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, Docket No. FAA-
2006-25634; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-143-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 are also inviting comments, views, or arguments on the new MCAI
process. 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 https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive concerning this proposed AD.
Discussion
The Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC),
which is the airworthiness authority for France, has issued French
Airworthiness Directive F-2005-157, dated September 14, 2005 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that the refined study of an in-
service event has evidenced the need to perform a periodic test of
pitch trim system 2. In the conditions of overriding the automatic
pitch torque limiter, the clutch of the pitch trim servo-motor 1 is
opened so that electric pitch trim system 1 will disconnect. The
question is pending about the availability of the system 2 and its
capability to take over the pitch trim function, particularly during a
go-around. Failure of pitch trim system 2 to deflect the trimmable
horizontal stabilizer (THS) at maximum rate could result in loss of
high-speed trim and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
The MCAI renders mandatory a periodic test to ensure the availability
of the pitch trim system 2 and its possibility to deflect the THS at
high speed of trim. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the docket.
Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated July 11,
2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD
This product is manufactured outside the United States 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 agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral
airworthiness agreement, the State of Design's airworthiness authority
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We have examined the
airworthiness authority's findings, evaluated all pertinent
information, and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on all products of this type design. We are issuing
this proposed AD to correct the unsafe condition.
Differences Between the Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of
law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively
from the information provided in the MCAI and related service
information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These proposed
requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the
actions copied from the MCAI.
Costs of Compliance
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 29 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work hour per product to do the periodic test and
3 work hours to do the repair and follow-on test, and that the average
labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost $0 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
change for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $2,320, or $80 per product.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies 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 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.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
[[Page 47754]]
received, and other information on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov;
or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone (800) 647-5227) is located at the street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
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 Federal Aviation Administration 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 FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-25634; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
143-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 18, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus A300 aircraft, all certified
models and all serial numbers, certificated in any category; except
for Models A300 B4-203 and A300 B2-203 in forward facing crew
cockpit certified configuration.
Reason
(d) The refined study of an in-service event has evidenced the
need to perform a periodic test of pitch trim system 2. In the
conditions of overriding the automatic pitch torque limiter, the
clutch of the pitch trim servo-motor 1 is opened so that electric
pitch trim system 1 will disconnect. The question is pending about
the availability of the system 2 and its capability to take over the
pitch trim function, particularly during a go-around. Failure of
pitch trim system 2 to deflect the trimmable horizontal stabilizer
(THS) at maximum rate could result in loss of high-speed trim and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. For such reason,
this AD renders mandatory a periodic test to ensure the availability
of the pitch trim system 2 and its possibility to deflect the THS at
high speed of trim.
Actions and Compliance
(e) Unless already done, do the following actions except as
stated in paragraph (f) below:
(1) Within 250 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Perform an operational test of pitch trim system 2 in high speed of
trim configuration and if system 2 does not function as specified in
the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated July
11, 2005; before further flight, return the system to correct
operating condition in accordance with the instructions of the
service bulletin.
(2) The operational test, followed if necessary by the
corrective action described in the paragraph above, is to be
repeated at intervals not exceeding 1,000 flight hours in accordance
with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated
July 11, 2005.
FAA AD Difference
(f) When complying with this AD, do the following: Although the
Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletin
describes procedures for submitting certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Safety Engineer, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425)
227-1149; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Notification of Principal Inspector: Before using any AMOC
approved in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which
the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the
FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3) Return to Airworthiness: When complying with this AD,
perform FAA-approved corrective actions before returning the product
to an airworthy condition.
Related Information
(h) This AD is related to MCAI French airworthiness directive F-
2005-157, dated September 14, 2005, which references Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated July 11, 2005, for information on
required actions.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-13647 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
