Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-300 Airplanes, 4198-4202 [E7-1208]
Download as PDF
4198
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
2007–01–14 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de
Havilland, Inc.): Amendment 39–14886.
FAA–2006–26217; Directorate Identifier
2006–NM–209–AD.
manual, provided the relevant information in
the general revision is identical to that in TRs
ALI–53 and ALI–54.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective March 6,
2007.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
14 CFR Part 39
(g)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 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.
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25079; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–065–AD; Amendment
39–14885; AD 2007–01–13]
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model
DHC–8–400 series airplanes, serial numbers
4001, 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through
4126 inclusive, certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from data obtained
from the manufacturer’s fatigue testing. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of certain principal
structural elements, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
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.
Note 1: This AD requires revisions to
certain operator maintenance documents to
include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by these inspections, the
operator may not be able to accomplish the
inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c),
the operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (g) of this AD. The request
should include a description of changes to
the required inspections that will ensure the
continued damage tolerance of the affected
structure. The FAA has provided guidance
for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC) 25–1529–1.
Maintenance Requirements Manual Revision
(f) Within 60 days after the effective date
of this AD, revise the Airworthiness
Limitations Items (ALI), Part 2, Section 2, of
the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Maintenance
Requirements Manual, PSM 1–84–7, by
incorporating the information in Bombardier
Q400 Dash 8 Temporary Revisions (TR) ALI–
53, dated February 16, 2006; and ALI–54,
dated March 27, 2006. Thereafter, except as
provided in paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative structural inspection intervals
may be approved for the fuselage and doors
as specified in the TRs.
Note 2: The actions required by paragraph
(f) of this AD may be done by inserting copies
of TR ALI–53, dated February 16, 2006, and
TR ALI–54, dated March 27, 2006; into the
ALI, Part 2, Section 2, of the Bombardier
Q400 Dash 8 Maintenance Requirements
Manual, PSM 1–84–7. When TRs ALI–53 and
ALI–54 have been included in the general
revisions of the maintenance requirements
manual, the general revisions may be
inserted into the maintenance requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
Related Information
(h) Canadian airworthiness directive CF–
2006–10, dated May 12, 2006, also addresses
the subject of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(i) You must use Bombardier Q400 Dash 8
Temporary Revision ALI–53, dated February
16, 2006, to the Airworthiness Limitations
Items, Part 2, Section 2, of the Bombardier
Q400 Dash 8 Maintenance Requirements
Manual, PSM 1–84–7; and Bombardier Q400
Dash 8 Temporary Revision ALI–54, dated
March 27, 2006, to the Airworthiness
Limitations Items, Part 2, Section 2, of the
Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Maintenance
Requirements Manual, PSM 1–84–7; to
perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of these
documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact
Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional
Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for a
copy of this service information. You may
review copies at the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL–401,
Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at the NARA,
call (202) 741–6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 26, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–1209 Filed 1–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Federal Aviation Administration
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A310–300 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A310–300 airplanes. This
AD requires replacing the existing nonreturn valve (NRV) of the auxiliary
center tanks (ACTs) of the fuel system
with a new, improved NRV. This AD
results from a report that it was not
possible to transfer fuel from ACTs 1
and 2 during flight, and no electronic
centralized aircraft monitor warnings
were triggered. Investigation revealed a
faulty static inverter and blown fuse,
resulting in failure of certain fueling bus
bars and subsequent failure of the
automatic ACT fuel transfer. We are
issuing this AD to prevent these failures,
combined with failure of the NRV to
close. If the NRV is open during flight,
the fuel supply to the engines may be
reduced during cross-feed operation to
the extent that fuel starvation could
occur and result in engine flameout.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
March 6, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of March 6, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401,
Washington, DC.
Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France,
for service information identified in this
AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 227–1622; fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness
directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
https://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 street address stated in the
ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would
apply to certain Airbus Model A310–
300 airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
June 20, 2006 (71 FR 35400). That
NPRM proposed to require replacing the
existing non-return valve (NRV) of the
auxiliary center tanks (ACTs) of the fuel
system with a new, improved NRV.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
Request To Clarify Applicability
Airbus asks that the applicability
specified in paragraph (c) of the NPRM
be clarified. Airbus states that the
applicability excludes airplanes on
which Airbus Modification 8928 was
embodied during production. Airbus
has the following reservations:
During production, Airbus
Modification 8928 could be embodied
either ‘‘completely’’ or ‘‘partially.’’ This
means that, for airplanes on which the
modification was partially embodied,
NRV part number (P/N) C23AE0103s
could be fitted in the outer tanks and
other positions; any combination of
P/Ns C23AE0102s and C23AE0103s
could be fitted and operators could
claim full accomplishment of the
modification. However, this exception is
fully valid for airplanes on which
Airbus Modification 8928 has been
completely embodied. As a ‘‘safety
principle’’ Airbus recommends
excluding airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 8928 has been completely
embodied (i.e., Airbus Model A310–300
airplanes, with manufacturer serial
numbers 0636 through 0706 inclusive).
Airbus also states that, as specified in
the applicability of the French
airworthiness directive, the AD is
applicable to airplanes equipped with
ACTs, or provisioned to receive ACTs.
Airbus notes that airplanes equipped
with provisions for ACTs on which
either Airbus (production)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
Modifications 6918 and 6919 or 6918,
6919, and 8339 have been installed
could also be fitted with NRVs having
P/N C23AE0102.
We agree that the applicability
specified in paragraph (c) of this AD
should be clarified, and we have
included additional information which
we determined would add further
clarity regarding the possible
installation of a NRV, as identified by
Airbus. We have changed the
applicability as follows: ‘‘This AD
applies to Airbus Model A310–304,
–308, –324, and –325 airplanes,
certificated in any category; equipped
with one or more auxiliary center tanks
(ACTs); on which either Airbus
(production) Modifications 6918 and
6919 or 6918, 6919, and 8339 have been
installed; except those on which Airbus
Modification 8928 has been done in
production.’’
Request To Incorporate-by-Reference
the Relevant Service Information
The Modification and Replacement
Parts Association (MARPA) states that
the NPRM references two documents for
accomplishing the specified actions.
MARPA adds that neither of these
documents is incorporated by reference
in the NPRM pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. MARPA notes that
because the service information is not
incorporated by reference, it has
copyright protection against duplication
and distribution by anyone, including
the U.S. Government. MARPA adds that
when an otherwise private document is
incorporated by reference into a public
document, such as an AD, it loses its
protections and becomes a public
document. MARPA believes that
mandatory reference to a private
document in order to comply with a
rule is fatally flawed, unless the private
document is incorporated by reference,
thereby making it public. MARPA
believes that public laws, by definition,
should be public, which means they
cannot rely upon private writings for
compliance. MARPA asks that all
service documents required for
accomplishing the mandated work be
incorporated by reference.
We do not agree that documents
should be incorporated by reference
during the NPRM phase of rulemaking.
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR)
requires that documents that are
necessary to accomplish the
requirements of the AD be incorporated
by reference during the final rule phase
of rulemaking. This final rule
incorporates by reference the document
necessary for the accomplishment of the
requirements mandated by this AD.
Further, we point out that while
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4199
documents that are incorporated by
reference do become public information,
as noted by the commenter, they do not
lose their copyright protection. For that
reason, we advise the public to contact
the manufacturer to obtain copies of the
referenced service information.
In regard to the commenter’s request
that service documents be made
available to the public by publication in
the Federal Register, we agree that
incorporation by reference was
authorized to reduce the volume of
material published in the Federal
Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations. However, as specified in
the Federal Register Document Drafting
Handbook, the Director of the OFR
decides when an agency may
incorporate material by reference. As
the commenter is aware, the OFR files
documents for public inspection on the
workday before the date of publication
of the rule at its office in Washington,
D.C. As stated in the Federal Register
Document Drafting Handbook, when
documents are filed for public
inspection, anyone may inspect or copy
file documents during the OFR’s hours
of business. Further questions regarding
publication of documents in the Federal
Register or incorporation by reference
should be directed to the OFR.
Request To Publish Service Information
in the Docket Management System
(DMS)
MARPA states that service documents
incorporated by reference should be
made available to the public by
publication in the DMS, keyed to the
action that incorporates those
documents. MARPA adds that under the
aforementioned authorities,
incorporation by reference is a
technique used to reduce the size of the
Federal Register when the information
is already available to the affected
individuals. MARPA adds that,
traditionally, ‘‘affected individuals’’
means aircraft owners and operators,
who are generally provided service
information by the manufacturer.
MARPA adds that, a new class of
affected individuals has emerged, since
the majority of aircraft maintenance is
now performed by specialty shops
instead of aircraft owners and operators.
MARPA notes that this new class
includes maintenance and repair
organizations, component servicing,
and/or servicing alternatively certified
parts under section 21.303
(‘‘Replacement and modification parts’’)
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.303). MARPA notes that the
concept of brevity is now nearly archaic
as documents exist more frequently in
electronic format than on paper.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
4200
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Therefore, MARPA asks that the service
documents deemed essential to the
accomplishment of the NPRM be
incorporated by reference into the
regulatory instrument and published in
DMS.
In regard to MARPA’s request to post
service bulletins on the Department of
Transportation’s DMS, we are currently
in the process of reviewing issues
surrounding the posting of service
bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD
docket. Once we have thoroughly
examined all aspects of this issue and
have made a final determination, we
will consider whether our current
practice needs to be revised. No change
to the AD is necessary in response to
this comments.
Request To Reference Parts
Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts
MARPA states that type certificate
holders in their service documents
universally ignore the possible existence
of PMA parts. According to MARPA,
this is especially true with foreign
manufacturers where the concept may
not exist or be implemented in the
country of origin. MARPA states that
frequently the service bulletin upon
which an AD is based will require the
removal of a certain part number and
the installation of a different part
number as a corrective action. MARPA
states that this practice runs afoul of 14
CFR 21.303, which permits the
development, certification, and
installation of alternatively certified
parts (PMA). MARPA states that
mandating the installation of a certain
part number to the exclusion of all other
parts is not a favored general practice.
According to MARPA, such action has
the dual effect of preventing, in some
cases, the installation of perfectly good
parts, while at the same time prohibiting
the development of new parts permitted
under 14 CFR 21.303. MARPA states
that such a prohibition runs the risk of
taking the AD out of the realm of safety
and into the world of economics since
prohibiting the development, sale, and
use of a perfectly airworthy part has
nothing to do with safety. MARPA adds
that courts could easily construe such
actions as being outside the statutory
basis of the AD (safety), and thus
unenforceable. MARPA adds that courts
are reluctant to find portions of rule
unenforceable since they lack the
knowledge and authority to rewrite
requirements, and are generally inclined
to void the entire rule.
We do not agree to change the AD to
permit installation of any equivalent
PMA parts so that it is not necessary for
an operator to request approval of an
alternative method of compliance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
(AMOC) in order to install an
‘‘equivalent’’ PMA part. Whether an
alternative part is ‘‘equivalent’’ in
adequately resolving the unsafe
condition can only be determined on a
case-by-case basis based on a complete
understanding of the unsafe condition.
We are not currently aware of any such
parts. Our policy is that, in order for
operators to replace a part with one that
is not specified in the AD, they must
request an AMOC. This is necessary so
that we can make a specific
determination that an alternative part is
or is not susceptible to the same unsafe
condition.
In response to MARPA’s statement
regarding a practice that ‘‘runs afoul of
14 CFR 21.303,’’ under which the FAA
issues PMAs, this statement appears to
reflect a misunderstanding of the
relationship between ADs and the
certification procedural regulations of
part 21 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 21). Those
regulations, including section 21.303 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.203), are intended to ensure that
aeronautical products comply with the
applicable airworthiness standards. But
ADs are issued when, notwithstanding
those procedures, we become aware of
unsafe conditions in these products or
parts. Therefore, an AD takes
precedence over design approvals when
we identify an unsafe condition, and
mandating installation of a certain part
number in an AD is not at variance with
section § 21.303.
The AD provides a means of
compliance for operators to ensure that
the identified unsafe condition is
addressed appropriately. For an unsafe
condition attributable to a part, the AD
normally identifies the replacement
parts necessary to obtain that
compliance. As stated in section 39.7 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 39.7), ‘‘Anyone who operates a
product that does not meet the
requirements of an applicable AD is in
violation of this section.’’ Unless an
operator obtains approval for an AMOC,
replacing a part with one not specified
by the AD would make the operator
subject to an enforcement action and
result in a civil penalty. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.
Request To Allow Use of PMA Parts
MARPA reiterates paragraph 9.a.(4) of
draft FAA Order 8040.2 and notes that
the draft order states that replacement or
installation of certain parts could have
replacement parts approved under 14
CFR 21.303 based on a finding of
identicality. MARPA adds that any parts
approved and installed under this
regulation should be subject to the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
actions of the AD and included in the
applicability. MARPA states that the
NPRM does not appear to have
considered this aspect; and it should be
adjusted to give due consideration to the
possible existence of alternatively
certified parts before issuance. MARPA
asserts that the service documents
referred to in the NPRM require the
installation of a specific ‘‘new and
improved’’ parts to the exclusion of all
other parts; which predicated the
following comments. MARPA has, on
numerous occasions, objected to the
Transport Airplane Directorate’s
(TAD’s) practice of mandating the
installation of a certain part as the sole
method of compliance with an AD.
MARPA’s belief has been, and remains,
that such practice violates 14 CFR
21.303 by enjoining the installation of
approved parts, while simultaneously
prohibiting the development of other
parts, both of which were not intended
by Congress. MARPA disagrees with
TAD’s general response, which has been
that MARPA simply does not
understand that ADs take precedence
over all other statutory requirements.
MARPA suggests that we adopt
language used in ADs issued by
directorates other than the TAD, which
specifies installing an ‘‘FAA-approved
equivalent part number’’ or ‘‘airworthy
parts.’’ MARPA, therefore, requests that
we revise the NPRM to allow use of
PMA parts.
MARPA adds that, in the past, the
TAD addressed this issue by requiring
an AMOC to use a PMA part, when it
had been determined that the OEM part
is defective; that action appears to defy
logic. MARPA states that when a PMA
is granted, a part is approved for
installation and it cannot be
‘‘unapproved’’ by any action without
cause; a defective OEM part is not cause
for invalidating a PMA when the PMA
part is not defective; this is not
addressed in the AD.
We do not agree to revise this AD. The
NPRM did not address PMA parts, as
provided in draft FAA Order 8040.2,
because the Order was only a draft that
was out for comment at the time. After
issuance of the NPRM, the Order was
revised and issued as FAA Order 8040.5
with an effective date of September 29,
2006. FAA Order 8040.5 does not
address PMA parts in ADs. We
acknowledge the need to ensure that
unsafe PMA parts are identified and
addressed in MCAI-related ADs. We are
currently examining all aspects of this
issue, including input from industry.
Once we have made a final
determination, we will consider how
our policy regarding PMA parts in ADs
needs to be revised. We consider that to
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
delay this AD action would be
inappropriate, since we have
determined that an unsafe condition
exists and that replacement of certain
parts must be accomplished to ensure
continued safety. Therefore, no change
has been made to the AD in this regard.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data, including the comments
received, and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the change described
previously. We have determined that
this change will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
This AD affects about 11 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The replacement will take
about 1 work hour per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour.
Required parts will cost about $368 per
airplane. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the AD for U.S.
operators is $4,928, or $448 per
airplane.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
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 AD will
not have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132. This AD will
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 this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
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 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, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
I
2007–01–13 Airbus: Amendment 39–14885.
Docket No. FAA–2006–25079;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–065–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective March 6,
2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310–
304, –308, –324, and –325 airplanes,
certificated in any category; equipped with
one or more auxiliary center tanks (ACTs); on
which either Airbus (production)
Modifications 6918 and 6919 or 6918, 6919,
and 8339 have been installed; except those
on which Airbus Modification 8928 has been
done in production.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report that it
was not possible to transfer fuel from ACTs
1 and 2 during flight, and no electronic
centralized aircraft monitor warnings were
triggered. Investigation revealed a faulty
static inverter and blown fuse, resulting in
failure of certain fueling bus bars and
subsequent failure of the automatic ACT fuel
transfer. We are issuing this AD to prevent
these failures, combined with failure of the
non-return valve (NRV) to close. If the NRV
is open during flight, the fuel supply to the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4201
engines may be reduced during cross-feed
operation to the extent that fuel starvation
could occur and result in engine flameout.
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.
Replacement
(f) Within 15,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD: Replace the existing
NRV with a new, improved NRV by doing all
the actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A310–28–2158, dated
September 1, 2005.
Note 1: The Airbus service bulletin refers
to Lucas Air Equipment Service Bulletin
C23AE01–28–01, Revision 1, dated July 20,
1994, as an additional source of service
information for replacing the NRV.
Parts Installation
(g) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install, on any airplane, a NRV
having part number C23AE0102, unless it has
been modified according to paragraph (f) of
this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(h)(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.
Related Information
(i) French airworthiness directive F–2005–
197, dated December 7, 2005, also addresses
the subject of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(j) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin
A310–28–2158, dated September 1, 2005, to
perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this document
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
France, for a copy of this service information.
You may review copies at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington,
DC; on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or
at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at the NARA,
call (202) 741–6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
4202
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 30, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 26, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–1208 Filed 1–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2006–23907; Airspace
Docket No. 06–AEA–03]
Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Ridgway, PA
The Rule
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class
E airspace at Ridgway Landing Zone,
Ridgway, PA. Development of an Area
Navigation (RNAV), Helicopter Point in
Space Approach, for the Ridgway
Landing Zone, Ridgway, PA, has made
this action necessary. Controlled
airspace extending upward from 700
feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is
needed to contain aircraft executing the
approach to the Ridgway Landing Zone.
This is a correction to a final rule
published on October 17, 2006. 71 FR
60817.
This final rule corrects the spelling of
‘‘Ridgeway’’ to ‘‘Ridgway’’
DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC
November 23, 2006. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist,
Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic
Division, Eastern Region, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation
Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809,
telephone: (718) 553–4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On March 13, 2006 a notice proposing
to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by
establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet Above Ground
Level (AGL) for an RNAV, Helicopter
Point in Space Approach to the Ridgway
Landing Zone, Ridgway, PA, was
published in the Federal Register.
Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
comments on the proposal to the FAA
on or before May 13, 2006. No
comments to the proposal were
received. The rule is adopted as
proposed. The coordinates for this
airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace
areas designations for airspace
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9N, dated September 1, 2005
and effective September 16, 2005, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document will be amended
in the order.
This amendment to Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
Part 71) provides controlled Class E
airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface for aircraft
conducting Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the Ridgway landing
Zone, Ridgway, PA.
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation it
is certified that this rule will not have
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
I
PART 71—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
The incorporation by reference in 14
CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
I
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated September 1, 2006, and effective
September 15, 2006, is amended as
follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth.
*
*
*
*
*
AEA PA E5 Ridgway, PA (New)
Ridgway Landing Zone Point in Space
Coordinates.
(Lat. 41°25′07″ N., long. 78°45′09″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius
of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the
Ridgway Land Zone, Ridgway, PA.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Jamaica, New York on December
21, 2006.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07–297 Filed 1–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 242
[Release No. 34–55160; File No. S7–10–04]
Regulation NMS
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; extension of
compliance dates.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission is extending
for a limited period of time three of the
future compliance dates for Rule 610
and Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (‘‘Rule
610’’ and ‘‘Rule 611,’’ respectively)
under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’). Rule 610
requires fair and non-discriminatory
access to quotations, establishes a limit
on access fees, and requires each
national securities exchange and
national securities association to adopt,
maintain, and enforce written rules that
prohibit their members from engaging in
a pattern or practice of displaying
quotations that lock or cross protected
quotations. Rule 611 requires trading
centers to establish, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the
execution of trades at prices inferior to
protected quotations displayed by other
trading centers, subject to an applicable
exception. The Commission is
extending the three compliance dates to
give automated trading centers
additional time to complete the rollout
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4198-4202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1208]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2006-25079; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-065-AD;
Amendment 39-14885; AD 2007-01-13]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-300 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A310-300 airplanes. This AD requires replacing the
existing non-return valve (NRV) of the auxiliary center tanks (ACTs) of
the fuel system with a new, improved NRV. This AD results from a report
that it was not possible to transfer fuel from ACTs 1 and 2 during
flight, and no electronic centralized aircraft monitor warnings were
triggered. Investigation revealed a faulty static inverter and blown
fuse, resulting in failure of certain fueling bus bars and subsequent
failure of the automatic ACT fuel transfer. We are issuing this AD to
prevent these failures, combined with failure of the NRV to close. If
the NRV is open during flight, the fuel supply to the engines may be
reduced during cross-feed operation to the extent that fuel starvation
could occur and result in engine flameout.
DATES: This AD becomes effective March 6, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 6,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL-401, Washington, DC.
Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
France, for service information identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 4199]]
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the
Internet at https://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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model
A310-300 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
June 20, 2006 (71 FR 35400). That NPRM proposed to require replacing
the existing non-return valve (NRV) of the auxiliary center tanks
(ACTs) of the fuel system with a new, improved NRV.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Request To Clarify Applicability
Airbus asks that the applicability specified in paragraph (c) of
the NPRM be clarified. Airbus states that the applicability excludes
airplanes on which Airbus Modification 8928 was embodied during
production. Airbus has the following reservations:
During production, Airbus Modification 8928 could be embodied
either ``completely'' or ``partially.'' This means that, for airplanes
on which the modification was partially embodied, NRV part number (P/N)
C23AE0103s could be fitted in the outer tanks and other positions; any
combination of P/Ns C23AE0102s and C23AE0103s could be fitted and
operators could claim full accomplishment of the modification. However,
this exception is fully valid for airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 8928 has been completely embodied. As a ``safety
principle'' Airbus recommends excluding airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 8928 has been completely embodied (i.e., Airbus Model
A310-300 airplanes, with manufacturer serial numbers 0636 through 0706
inclusive).
Airbus also states that, as specified in the applicability of the
French airworthiness directive, the AD is applicable to airplanes
equipped with ACTs, or provisioned to receive ACTs. Airbus notes that
airplanes equipped with provisions for ACTs on which either Airbus
(production) Modifications 6918 and 6919 or 6918, 6919, and 8339 have
been installed could also be fitted with NRVs having P/N C23AE0102.
We agree that the applicability specified in paragraph (c) of this
AD should be clarified, and we have included additional information
which we determined would add further clarity regarding the possible
installation of a NRV, as identified by Airbus. We have changed the
applicability as follows: ``This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-304, -
308, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped
with one or more auxiliary center tanks (ACTs); on which either Airbus
(production) Modifications 6918 and 6919 or 6918, 6919, and 8339 have
been installed; except those on which Airbus Modification 8928 has been
done in production.''
Request To Incorporate-by-Reference the Relevant Service Information
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states
that the NPRM references two documents for accomplishing the specified
actions. MARPA adds that neither of these documents is incorporated by
reference in the NPRM pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
MARPA notes that because the service information is not incorporated by
reference, it has copyright protection against duplication and
distribution by anyone, including the U.S. Government. MARPA adds that
when an otherwise private document is incorporated by reference into a
public document, such as an AD, it loses its protections and becomes a
public document. MARPA believes that mandatory reference to a private
document in order to comply with a rule is fatally flawed, unless the
private document is incorporated by reference, thereby making it
public. MARPA believes that public laws, by definition, should be
public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings for
compliance. MARPA asks that all service documents required for
accomplishing the mandated work be incorporated by reference.
We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference
during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the
requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final
rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the
document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated
by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are
incorporated by reference do become public information, as noted by the
commenter, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that
reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain
copies of the referenced service information.
In regard to the commenter's request that service documents be made
available to the public by publication in the Federal Register, we
agree that incorporation by reference was authorized to reduce the
volume of material published in the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations. However, as specified in the Federal Register
Document Drafting Handbook, the Director of the OFR decides when an
agency may incorporate material by reference. As the commenter is
aware, the OFR files documents for public inspection on the workday
before the date of publication of the rule at its office in Washington,
D.C. As stated in the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, when
documents are filed for public inspection, anyone may inspect or copy
file documents during the OFR's hours of business. Further questions
regarding publication of documents in the Federal Register or
incorporation by reference should be directed to the OFR.
Request To Publish Service Information in the Docket Management System
(DMS)
MARPA states that service documents incorporated by reference
should be made available to the public by publication in the DMS, keyed
to the action that incorporates those documents. MARPA adds that under
the aforementioned authorities, incorporation by reference is a
technique used to reduce the size of the Federal Register when the
information is already available to the affected individuals. MARPA
adds that, traditionally, ``affected individuals'' means aircraft
owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by
the manufacturer. MARPA adds that, a new class of affected individuals
has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now
performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators.
MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair
organizations, component servicing, and/or servicing alternatively
certified parts under section 21.303 (``Replacement and modification
parts'') of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA
notes that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents
exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper.
[[Page 4200]]
Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to
the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the
regulatory instrument and published in DMS.
In regard to MARPA's request to post service bulletins on the
Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of
reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the
DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all
aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will
consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to
the AD is necessary in response to this comments.
Request To Reference Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts
MARPA states that type certificate holders in their service
documents universally ignore the possible existence of PMA parts.
According to MARPA, this is especially true with foreign manufacturers
where the concept may not exist or be implemented in the country of
origin. MARPA states that frequently the service bulletin upon which an
AD is based will require the removal of a certain part number and the
installation of a different part number as a corrective action. MARPA
states that this practice runs afoul of 14 CFR 21.303, which permits
the development, certification, and installation of alternatively
certified parts (PMA). MARPA states that mandating the installation of
a certain part number to the exclusion of all other parts is not a
favored general practice. According to MARPA, such action has the dual
effect of preventing, in some cases, the installation of perfectly good
parts, while at the same time prohibiting the development of new parts
permitted under 14 CFR 21.303. MARPA states that such a prohibition
runs the risk of taking the AD out of the realm of safety and into the
world of economics since prohibiting the development, sale, and use of
a perfectly airworthy part has nothing to do with safety. MARPA adds
that courts could easily construe such actions as being outside the
statutory basis of the AD (safety), and thus unenforceable. MARPA adds
that courts are reluctant to find portions of rule unenforceable since
they lack the knowledge and authority to rewrite requirements, and are
generally inclined to void the entire rule.
We do not agree to change the AD to permit installation of any
equivalent PMA parts so that it is not necessary for an operator to
request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in order
to install an ``equivalent'' PMA part. Whether an alternative part is
``equivalent'' in adequately resolving the unsafe condition can only be
determined on a case-by-case basis based on a complete understanding of
the unsafe condition. We are not currently aware of any such parts. Our
policy is that, in order for operators to replace a part with one that
is not specified in the AD, they must request an AMOC. This is
necessary so that we can make a specific determination that an
alternative part is or is not susceptible to the same unsafe condition.
In response to MARPA's statement regarding a practice that ``runs
afoul of 14 CFR 21.303,'' under which the FAA issues PMAs, this
statement appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the relationship
between ADs and the certification procedural regulations of part 21 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 21). Those regulations,
including section 21.303 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.203), are intended to ensure that aeronautical products comply with
the applicable airworthiness standards. But ADs are issued when,
notwithstanding those procedures, we become aware of unsafe conditions
in these products or parts. Therefore, an AD takes precedence over
design approvals when we identify an unsafe condition, and mandating
installation of a certain part number in an AD is not at variance with
section Sec. 21.303.
The AD provides a means of compliance for operators to ensure that
the identified unsafe condition is addressed appropriately. For an
unsafe condition attributable to a part, the AD normally identifies the
replacement parts necessary to obtain that compliance. As stated in
section 39.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.7),
``Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of
an applicable AD is in violation of this section.'' Unless an operator
obtains approval for an AMOC, replacing a part with one not specified
by the AD would make the operator subject to an enforcement action and
result in a civil penalty. We have not changed the AD in this regard.
Request To Allow Use of PMA Parts
MARPA reiterates paragraph 9.a.(4) of draft FAA Order 8040.2 and
notes that the draft order states that replacement or installation of
certain parts could have replacement parts approved under 14 CFR 21.303
based on a finding of identicality. MARPA adds that any parts approved
and installed under this regulation should be subject to the actions of
the AD and included in the applicability. MARPA states that the NPRM
does not appear to have considered this aspect; and it should be
adjusted to give due consideration to the possible existence of
alternatively certified parts before issuance. MARPA asserts that the
service documents referred to in the NPRM require the installation of a
specific ``new and improved'' parts to the exclusion of all other
parts; which predicated the following comments. MARPA has, on numerous
occasions, objected to the Transport Airplane Directorate's (TAD's)
practice of mandating the installation of a certain part as the sole
method of compliance with an AD. MARPA's belief has been, and remains,
that such practice violates 14 CFR 21.303 by enjoining the installation
of approved parts, while simultaneously prohibiting the development of
other parts, both of which were not intended by Congress. MARPA
disagrees with TAD's general response, which has been that MARPA simply
does not understand that ADs take precedence over all other statutory
requirements. MARPA suggests that we adopt language used in ADs issued
by directorates other than the TAD, which specifies installing an
``FAA-approved equivalent part number'' or ``airworthy parts.'' MARPA,
therefore, requests that we revise the NPRM to allow use of PMA parts.
MARPA adds that, in the past, the TAD addressed this issue by
requiring an AMOC to use a PMA part, when it had been determined that
the OEM part is defective; that action appears to defy logic. MARPA
states that when a PMA is granted, a part is approved for installation
and it cannot be ``unapproved'' by any action without cause; a
defective OEM part is not cause for invalidating a PMA when the PMA
part is not defective; this is not addressed in the AD.
We do not agree to revise this AD. The NPRM did not address PMA
parts, as provided in draft FAA Order 8040.2, because the Order was
only a draft that was out for comment at the time. After issuance of
the NPRM, the Order was revised and issued as FAA Order 8040.5 with an
effective date of September 29, 2006. FAA Order 8040.5 does not address
PMA parts in ADs. We acknowledge the need to ensure that unsafe PMA
parts are identified and addressed in MCAI-related ADs. We are
currently examining all aspects of this issue, including input from
industry. Once we have made a final determination, we will consider how
our policy regarding PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. We consider
that to
[[Page 4201]]
delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined
that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts
must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change
has been made to the AD in this regard.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously.
We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
This AD affects about 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
replacement will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $368
per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for
U.S. operators is $4,928, or $448 per airplane.
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 AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) 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 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, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
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]
0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
2007-01-13 Airbus: Amendment 39-14885. Docket No. FAA-2006-25079;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-065-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective March 6, 2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-304, -308, -324, and -
325 airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with one or
more auxiliary center tanks (ACTs); on which either Airbus
(production) Modifications 6918 and 6919 or 6918, 6919, and 8339
have been installed; except those on which Airbus Modification 8928
has been done in production.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report that it was not possible to
transfer fuel from ACTs 1 and 2 during flight, and no electronic
centralized aircraft monitor warnings were triggered. Investigation
revealed a faulty static inverter and blown fuse, resulting in
failure of certain fueling bus bars and subsequent failure of the
automatic ACT fuel transfer. We are issuing this AD to prevent these
failures, combined with failure of the non-return valve (NRV) to
close. If the NRV is open during flight, the fuel supply to the
engines may be reduced during cross-feed operation to the extent
that fuel starvation could occur and result in engine flameout.
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.
Replacement
(f) Within 15,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD: Replace the existing NRV with a new, improved NRV by doing all
the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2158, dated September 1, 2005.
Note 1: The Airbus service bulletin refers to Lucas Air
Equipment Service Bulletin C23AE01-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 20,
1994, as an additional source of service information for replacing
the NRV.
Parts Installation
(g) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install,
on any airplane, a NRV having part number C23AE0102, unless it has
been modified according to paragraph (f) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(h)(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
(i) French airworthiness directive F-2005-197, dated December 7,
2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(j) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2158, dated
September 1, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1
Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy
of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
[[Page 4202]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 26, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-1208 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P