Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes, 1646-1649 [E9-456]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
1646
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
which are the multipliers used to
determine the manufacturer selling
prices based on manufacturing cost.
Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD
discusses the engineering analysis.
2. Energy Use Characterization
The energy use characterization
provides estimates of annual energy
consumption for the three heating
products, which DOE uses in the LCC
and PBP analyses and the NIA. DOE
developed energy consumption
estimates for all of the product classes
analyzed in the engineering analysis as
the basis for its energy use estimates.
Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD
discusses the energy use
characterization.
3. Markups To Determine Product Prices
DOE derives consumer prices for
products based on manufacturer
markups, retailer markups, distributor
markups, contractor markups, builder
markups, and sales taxes. In deriving
these markups, DOE has determined (1)
The distribution channels for product
sales; (2) the markup associated with
each party in the distribution channels;
and (3) the existence and magnitude of
differences between markups for
baseline products (baseline markups)
and for more-efficient products
(incremental markups). DOE calculates
both overall baseline and overall
incremental markups based on the
product markups at each step in the
distribution channel. The overall
incremental markup relates the change
in the manufacturer sales price of
higher-efficiency models (the
incremental cost increase) to the change
in the retailer or distributor sales price.
Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD
discusses the estimation of markups.
4. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
The LCC and PBP analyses determine
the economic impact of potential
standards on individual consumers. The
LCC is the total consumer expense for
a product over the life of the product.
The LCC analysis compares the LCCs of
products designed to meet possible
energy conservation standards with the
LCCs of the products likely to be
installed in the absence of standards.
DOE determines LCCs by considering
(1) Total installed cost to the purchaser
(which consists of manufacturer selling
price, sales taxes, distribution chain
markups, and installation cost); (2) the
operating expenses of the products
(energy use and maintenance); (3)
product lifetime; and (4) a discount rate
that reflects the real consumer cost of
capital and puts the LCC in present-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Jan 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
value terms. The PBP represents the
number of years needed to recover the
increase in purchase price (including
installation cost) of more efficient
products through savings in the
operating cost of the product. It is the
change in total installed cost due to
increased efficiency divided by the
change in annual operating cost from
increased efficiency. Chapter 8 of the
preliminary TSD discusses the LCC and
PBP analyses.
5. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy
savings (NES) and the net present value
(NPV) of total consumer costs and
savings expected to result from new
standards at specific efficiency levels
(referred to as candidate standard
levels). Examining the three heating
products, DOE calculated NES and NPV
for each efficiency level as the
difference between a base-case forecast
(without new standards) and the
standards case forecast (with standards).
DOE determined national annual energy
consumption by multiplying the
number of units in use (by vintage,
which is expressed in years) by the
average unit energy consumption (also
by vintage). Cumulative energy savings
are the sum of the annual NES
determined over a specified time period.
The national NPV is the sum over time
of the discounted net savings each year,
which consists of the difference
between total operating cost savings and
increases in total installed costs. Critical
inputs to this analysis include
shipments projections, retirement rates
(based on estimated product lifetimes),
and estimates of changes in shipments
and retirement rates in response to
changes in product costs due to
standards. Chapter 10 of the preliminary
TSD discusses the NIA.
DOE consulted with stakeholders and
other interested persons as part of its
process for conducting all of the
analyses and invites further input from
the public on these topics. The
preliminary analytical results are
subject to revision following review and
input from the public. A complete and
revised TSD will be made available
upon issuance of a NOPR. The final rule
will contain the final analysis results
and be accompanied by a final rule TSD.
DOE encourages those who wish to
participate in the public meeting to
obtain the preliminary TSD and to be
prepared to discuss its contents. A copy
of the preliminary TSD is available at
the Web address given in the SUMMARY
section of this notice. However, public
meeting participants need not limit their
comments to the topics identified in the
preliminary TSD. DOE is also interested
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in receiving views concerning other
relevant issues that participants believe
would affect energy conservation
standards for these products or that DOE
should address in the NOPR.
Furthermore, DOE welcomes all
interested parties, whether or not they
participate in the public meeting, to
submit in writing by March 16, 2009,
comments and information on matters
addressed in the preliminary TSD and
on other matters relevant to
consideration of standards for
residential water heaters, direct heating
equipment, and pool heaters.
The public meeting will be conducted
in an informal, conference style. A court
reporter will be present to record the
minutes of the meeting. There shall be
no discussion of proprietary
information, costs or prices, market
shares, or other commercial matters
regulated by United States antitrust
laws.
After the public meeting and the
expiration of the period for submitting
written statements, DOE will consider
all comments and additional
information that is obtained from
interested parties or through further
analyses, and it will prepare a NOPR.
The NOPR will include proposed energy
conservation standards for the products
covered by this rulemaking, and
members of the public will be given an
opportunity to submit written and oral
comments on the proposed standards.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5,
2009.
John F. Mizroch,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E9–476 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0004; Directorate
Identifier 2008–NM–160–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), 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
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct
an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:
One case of elevator servo-control
disconnection has been experienced on an
aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred
at the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to
this finding, additional inspections have
revealed cracking at the same location on a
number of other servo-control rod eye-ends.
In one case, both actuators of the same
elevator surface were affected. * * *
A dual servo-control disconnection on the
same elevator could result in an uncontrolled
surface, the elevator surface being neither
actuated nor damped, which could lead to
reduced control of the aircraft.
*
*
*
*
*
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 February 12, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond
Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51;
e-mail: account.airwortheas@airbus.com; Internet https://
www.airbus.com. You may review
copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221
or 425–227–1152.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Jan 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
1647
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 227–2141; fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The corrective actions include replacing
any cracked rod eye end with a
serviceable unit and re-adjusting the
elevator servo-control. You may obtain
further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.
Comments Invited
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of This Proposed AD
This product has been approved by
the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with the State of
Design Authority, we have been notified
of the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined an unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same
type design.
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2009–0004; Directorate Identifier
2008–NM–160–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD based on those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008–0149,
dated August 5, 2008 (referred to after
this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products.
The MCAI states:
One case of elevator servo-control
disconnection has been experienced on an
aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred
at the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to
this finding, additional inspections have
revealed cracking at the same location on a
number of other servo-control rod eye-ends.
In one case, both actuators of the same
elevator surface were affected. The root cause
of the cracking has not yet been determined
and tests are ongoing. It is anticipated that
further actions will be required.
A dual servo-control disconnection on the
same elevator could result in an uncontrolled
surface, the elevator surface being neither
actuated nor damped, which could lead to
reduced control of the aircraft.
For the reason described above, this AD
requires a one-time inspection [for cracking]
of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends
and, in case of findings, the accomplishment
of corrective actions.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued All Operators Telex
A320–27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the
MCAI.
Differences Between This 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 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
highlighted in a NOTE within the
proposed AD.
Costs of Compliance
Based on the service information, we
estimate that this proposed AD would
affect about 730 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 13 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of
this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be
$759,200, or $1,040 per product.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
1648
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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.
Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2009–0004;
Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–160–AD.
Regulatory Findings
We 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 this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. 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.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
One case of elevator servo-control
disconnection has been experienced on an
aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred
at the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to
this finding, additional inspections have
revealed cracking at the same location on a
number of other servo-control rod eye-ends.
In one case, both actuators of the same
elevator surface were affected. The root cause
of the cracking has not yet been determined
and tests are ongoing. It is anticipated that
further actions will be required.
A dual servo-control disconnection on the
same elevator could result in an uncontrolled
surface, the elevator surface being neither
actuated nor damped, which could lead to
reduced control of the aircraft.
For the reason described above, this AD
requires a one-time inspection [for cracking]
of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends
and, in case of findings, the accomplishment
of corrective actions.
The corrective actions include replacing any
cracked rod eye-end with a serviceable unit
and re-adjusting the elevator servo-control.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Jan 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by February
12, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318–
111, –112, –121, and –122; A319–111, –112,
–113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133;
A320–111, –211, –212, –214, –231, –232,
–233; and A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212,
–213, –231, and –232 series airplanes;
certificated in any category; all manufacturer
serial numbers.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 27: Flight controls.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Unless already done after the
accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles
since first flight of the airplane, do the
following actions.
(1) Not before the accumulation of 10,000
total flight cycles since first flight of the
airplane, and at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii)
of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and
right-hand inboard elevator servo-control rod
eye-ends for cracking in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus All Operators Telex
(AOT) A320–27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
(i) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days
after accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles
since first flight of the airplane, whichever
occurs first.
(2) Not before the accumulation of 10,000
total flight cycles since first flight of the
airplane, and at the later of the times
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii)
of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and
right-hand outboard elevator servo-control
rod eye-ends for cracking, in accordance with
the instructions of Airbus AOT A320–
27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
(i) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.
(ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days
after accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles
since first flight of the airplane, whichever
occurs first.
(3) If any cracking is found during any
inspection required by this AD, before further
flight, accomplish all applicable corrective
actions in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus AOT A320–27A1186, dated June 23,
2008.
(4) Submit a report of the findings of the
inspection required by paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) of this AD to Airbus in accordance with
the instructions of Airbus AOT A320–
27A1186, dated June 23, 2008, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph
(f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii) of this AD. Under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection
requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.
(i) If the inspection was done after the
effective date of this AD: Submit the report
within 40 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the
effective date of this AD: Submit the report
within 40 days after the effective date of this
AD.
(5) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install on any airplane an
elevator servo-control rod eye-end unless it
has been inspected in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus AOT A320–27A1186,
dated June 23, 2008.
FAA AD Differences
Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI
and/or service information as follows: No
differences.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2141; fax
(425) 227–1149. Before using any approved
AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your
local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2008–
0149, dated August 5, 2008, and Airbus AOT
A320–27A1186, dated June 23, 2008, for
related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 29, 2008.
Linda Navarro,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–456 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0003; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–251–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A330–200 and –300 Series Airplanes,
and A340–200, –300, –500 and –600
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), 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)
originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct
an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: Several cases of corrosion
and damage on the Down Drive Shafts
(DDS), between the Down Drive Gear
Box (DDGB) and the Input Gear Box
(IPGB), on all 10 Flap Tracks (5 per
wing), have been reported by AIRBUS
Long Range Operators. Investigations
have revealed that corrosion and wear
due to absence of grease in the spline
interfaces could cause [DDS]
disconnection which could result in a
free movable flap surface, potentially
leading to aircraft asymmetry or even
flap detachment.The proposed AD
would require actions that are intended
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Jan 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
to address the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by February 12, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2797;
fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2009–0003; Directorate Identifier
2007–NM–251–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD based on those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1649
Discussion
The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008–0026,
dated February 12, 2008 (referred to
after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:
Several cases of corrosion and damage on
the Down Drive Shafts (DDS), between the
Down Drive Gear Box (DDGB) and the Input
Gear Box (IPGB), on all 10 Flap Tracks (5 per
wing), have been reported by AIRBUS Long
Range Operators.
Investigations have revealed that corrosion
and wear due to absence of grease in the
spline interfaces could cause [DDS]
disconnection which could result in a free
movable flap surface, potentially leading to
aircraft asymmetry or even flap detachment.
Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD)
2007–0222–E mandated on all aircraft older
than 6 years since AIRBUS original delivery
date of the aircraft, an initial inspection of all
DDS and IPGB for corrosion and wear
detection in order to replace any damaged
part.
Revision 1 of EAD 2007–0222–E aimed for
clarifying the compliance instructions.
[EASA AD 2008–0026] supersedes the EAD
2007–0222R1–E and mandates repetitive
inspections every 6 years for all the fleet.
The corrective actions include replacing
damaged parts before next flight. You
may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued Service Bulletins
A330–27–3151, A330–27–3152, A340–
27–4151, A340–27–4152, and A340–27–
5040; all dated August 9, 2007. The
actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the
MCAI.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of This Proposed AD
This product has been approved by
the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with the State of
Design Authority, we have been notified
of the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined an unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same
type design.
Differences Between This AD and the
MCAI or Service Information
We have reviewed the MCAI and
related service information and, in
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1646-1649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-456]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0004; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-160-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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
[[Page 1647]]
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred at
the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to this finding, additional
inspections have revealed cracking at the same location on a number
of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In one case, both actuators of
the same elevator surface were affected. * * *
A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aircraft.
* * * * *
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 February 12,
2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail: account.airworth-
eas@airbus.com; Internet https://www.airbus.com. You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221 or
425-227-1152.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0004;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-160-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0149, dated August 5, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:
One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred at
the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to this finding, additional
inspections have revealed cracking at the same location on a number
of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In one case, both actuators of
the same elevator surface were affected. The root cause of the
cracking has not yet been determined and tests are ongoing. It is
anticipated that further actions will be required.
A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aircraft.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection [for cracking] of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends
and, in case of findings, the accomplishment of corrective actions.
The corrective actions include replacing any cracked rod eye end with a
serviceable unit and re-adjusting the elevator servo-control. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued All Operators Telex A320-27A1186, dated June 23,
2008. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
Differences Between This 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 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
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.
Costs of Compliance
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 730 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 13 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $759,200, or $1,040 per product.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
[[Page 1648]]
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 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 this proposed
regulation:
1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. 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.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2009-0004; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
160-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by February 12, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -
122; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133; A320-
111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, -233; and A321-111, -112, -131, -
211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 series airplanes; certificated in
any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
controls.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred at
the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to this finding, additional
inspections have revealed cracking at the same location on a number
of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In one case, both actuators of
the same elevator surface were affected. The root cause of the
cracking has not yet been determined and tests are ongoing. It is
anticipated that further actions will be required.
A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aircraft.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection [for cracking] of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends
and, in case of findings, the accomplishment of corrective actions.
The corrective actions include replacing any cracked rod eye-end
with a serviceable unit and re-adjusting the elevator servo-control.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Unless already done after the accumulation of 10,000 total
flight cycles since first flight of the airplane, do the following
actions.
(1) Not before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles
since first flight of the airplane, and at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD: Inspect
both the left-hand and right-hand inboard elevator servo-control rod
eye-ends for cracking in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
All Operators Telex (AOT) A320-27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
(i) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days after accumulating
10,000 total flight cycles since first flight of the airplane,
whichever occurs first.
(2) Not before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles
since first flight of the airplane, and at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD: Inspect
both the left-hand and right-hand outboard elevator servo-control
rod eye-ends for cracking, in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus AOT A320-27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
(i) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days after accumulating
10,000 total flight cycles since first flight of the airplane,
whichever occurs first.
(3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, before further flight, accomplish all applicable corrective
actions in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A320-
27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
(4) Submit a report of the findings of the inspection required
by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD to Airbus in accordance
with the instructions of Airbus AOT A320-27A1186, dated June 23,
2008, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i) or
(f)(4)(ii) of this AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(i) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 40 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 40 days after the effective date
of this AD.
(5) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
on any airplane an elevator servo-control rod eye-end unless it has
been inspected in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT
A320-27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
FAA AD Differences
Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
[[Page 1649]]
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0149, dated August 5, 2008, and Airbus AOT A320-
27A1186, dated June 23, 2008, for related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 2008.
Linda Navarro,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-456 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
