Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318 Series Airplanes, 40776-40778 [E9-19419]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40776
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
experimental variability and repeatability. As
a result, this approach would necessitate a
larger number of PQD tests (relative to
confirming the applicability of the regulatory
guide). Analytical limits, along with the
experimental procedures, protocols, and
specimen test results used in their
development, would be subject to NRC
review and approval.
This approach would require that the PQD
test results on irradiated cladding segments
documented in NUREG/CR–6967 be
considered in the development of analytical
limits. Deviations in cladding performance
relative to this empirical database must be
identified and dispositioned.
sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Existing Cladding Alloys
In the case of existing cladding alloys, the
rule may specify the following performance
requirement to ensure an adequate retention
of cladding ductility:
Accumulation of ≥ 1.00 percent permanent
strain prior to failure during ringcompression loading at a temperature of 135
°C and a displacement rate of 0.033 mm/sec
on a cladding specimen exposed to doublesided steam oxidation up to a specified peak
oxidation temperature and CP–ECR.
Analytical limits on allowable time-attemperature (CP–ECR) and peak cladding
temperature would need to be defined as a
function of initial cladding hydrogen content
(wppm in metal) to demonstrate this
performance requirement is met. A topical
report (TR) would be generated to document
the basis for the new analytical limits.
Existing alloys which were included in the
NRC high-burnup research program may
reference the test results documented in
NUREG/CR–6967 in the development of new
analytical limits. This data was generated
following experimental protocols acceptable
to the NRC, so no further justification related
to its validity would be required.
Using an approved hydrogen uptake model
for an existing cladding alloy, the TR would
provide the methodology to convert the
hydrogen-based analytical limits to some unit
of measure more readily applied within
reload safety analyses (e.g., fuel rod burnup
or fuel duty). Uncertainties related to
hydrogen uniformity and uncertainties
introduced by the conversion from hydrogen
to another unit of measure would need to be
addressed.
New Cladding Alloys
In the case of new cladding alloys, the rule
may specify the following performance
requirement to ensure an adequate retention
of cladding ductility:
Accumulation of ≥ 1.00 percent permanent
strain prior to failure during ringcompression loading at a temperature of 135
°C and a displacement rate of 0.033 mm/sec
on a cladding specimen exposed to doublesided steam oxidation up to a specified peak
oxidation temperature and CP–ECR.
Analytical limits on allowable time-attemperature (CP–ECR) and peak cladding
temperature would need to be defined as a
function of initial cladding hydrogen content
(wppm in metal) to demonstrate this
performance requirement is met. A TR would
be generated to document the basis for the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:45 Aug 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
new analytical limits. The PQD test results
on irradiated cladding segments documented
in NUREG/CR–6967 would need to be
considered in the development of analytical
limits. PQD testing would be required to (1)
establish analytical limits in accordance with
the performance requirements that would be
specified within the rule, and (2)
demonstrate the applicability of the NUREG/
CR–6967 empirical database. A TR could
document that the PQD testing had been
conducted to strictly adhere to the accepted
experimental protocols documented in
regulatory guidance documents, or if
alternative testing procedures were used,
then NRC review and approval of those
laboratory procedures would be required.
For this approach, defining analytical
limits for new cladding alloys would likely
require testing at a range of hydrogen
contents, with ring-compression test results
at multiple calculated oxidation levels. Test
samples with calculated oxidation levels
sufficient to display brittle behavior, as well
as test samples with calculated oxidation
levels which display ductile behavior, would
be necessary to define the transition from
ductile to brittle behavior. Regulatory
guidance would be provided to address the
variability in measured offset strain of ringcompression test results. Section IV of this
ANPR specifically seeks comment on the
treatment of variability in ductility
measurements of ring-compression tests. The
range of hydrogen contents in test samples
required may be limited by proposing
cladding hydrogen design limits based on hot
cell examinations of irradiated samples of the
new cladding alloy following lead test
assembly campaigns.
and reload-by-reload confirmation. This
approach also relies on tacit assumptions
regarding the currently approved LOCA
model’s ability to accurately simulate the
thermal-hydraulic conditions in every region
of the reactor core (as opposed to simulating
a core average response or pseudo hot
channel location). Modeling uncertainties
with respect to predicting local conditions
throughout the reactor core would need to be
addressed.
Using an approved hydrogen uptake model
for a new cladding alloy, the TR would need
to provide the methodology to convert the
hydrogen-based analytical limits to some unit
of measure more readily applied within
reload safety analyses (e.g., fuel rod burnup
or fuel duty). Uncertainties related to
hydrogen uniformity and uncertainties
introduced by the conversion from hydrogen
to another unit of measure would need to be
addressed.
For this description, it is assumed that
sufficient justification for the use of hydrogen
charged cladding specimens has been
accepted as a surrogate for testing on
irradiated cladding segments. If sufficient
justification for the use of hydrogen charged
cladding specimens has not been accepted as
a surrogate for testing on irradiated cladding
segments, approving new cladding alloys
would require PQD testing of irradiated
material. Section IV of this ANPR requests
information on any ongoing or planned
testing aimed at validating this pre-hydrided
surrogate.
Multifaceted Analytical Limits
Recognizing that higher burnup fuel rods
(with higher hydrogen concentrations)
operate at a reduced power level (relative to
lower burnup fuel rods), defining analytical
limits for maximum allowable ECR at
multiple peak oxidation temperatures would
also be possible. For example, a TR could
document the results of testing conducted at
peak oxidation temperatures of 2200 °F (1204
°C), 2000 °F (1093 °C), and 1800 °F (982 °C),
which are targeted at low burnup (low
corrosion), medium burnup (medium
corrosion), and high burnup (high corrosion)
fuel rods, respectively. Testing to support
these new limits would require testing at a
range of hydrogen contents, with ringcompression test results at multiple
calculated oxidation levels to define the
transition from ductile to brittle behavior. In
this case, it may be necessary to elect to
strictly adhere to the accepted experimental
protocols documented in regulatory guidance
documents, thereby limiting regulatory
exposure related to testing procedures and
the validity of the data.
Implementation of the multifaceted
analytical limits would require separating all
of the fuel rods in the core into three
categories and then ensuring that all fuel rods
within each category satisfies their respective
analytical limits on both CP–ECR and PCT.
While it is anticipated that this approach
would provide flexibility, it would also
necessitate a more complex LOCA analysis
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FR Doc. E9–19423 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0713; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–303–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A318 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:
Some operators have reported airframe
vibration under specific flight conditions
including gusts.
Investigations have revealed that under
such conditions, vibrations may occur when
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the hinge moment of the elevator is close to
zero, associated to elevator free-play.
*
*
*
*
*
The unsafe condition is excessive
vibration of the elevators, which could
result in reduced structural integrity
and reduced controllability of the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by September 14,
2009.
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.
ADDRESSES:
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:
sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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–2009–0713; Directorate Identifier
2007–NM–303–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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:45 Aug 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 2007–0163,
dated June 11, 2007 (referred to after
this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products.
The MCAI states:
Some operators have reported airframe
vibration under specific flight conditions
including gusts.
Investigations have revealed that under
such conditions, vibrations may occur when
the hinge moment of the elevator is close to
zero, associated to elevator free-play.
*
*
*
*
*
The unsafe condition is excessive
vibration of the elevators, which could
result in reduced structural integrity
and reduced controllability of the
airplane. The corrective action includes
inspecting the elevators for excessive
freeplay and repairing the elevator or
servo controls, if necessary. You may
obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.
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. 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, 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.
We might also have proposed
different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40777
policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the
proposed AD.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 11 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 2 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
$1,760, or $160 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,
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.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
40778
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2009–0713;
Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–303–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by
September 14, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model
A318 series airplanes; certificated in any
category.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 27: Flight Controls.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
‘‘Some operators have reported airframe
vibration under specific flight conditions
including gusts.
‘‘Investigations have revealed that under
such conditions, vibrations may occur when
the hinge moment of the elevator is close to
zero, associated to elevator free-play.’’
*
*
*
*
*
sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
The unsafe condition is excessive vibration
of the elevators, which could result in
reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. The corrective
action includes inspecting the elevators for
excessive freeplay, and repairing the elevator
or servo controls, if necessary.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Unless already done, do the following
actions.
(1) At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD,
inspect the elevators for excessive freeplay,
using a load application tool and a spring
scale assembly, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated
agent). Repeat the inspection at intervals not
to exceed 20 months.
Note 1: Guidance on the inspection
procedures can be found in Task 27–34–00–
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:45 Aug 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
200–001 of the A318/A319/A320/A321
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).
(i) Within 20 months since the date of
issuance of the original French, German, or
EASA airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original French, German, or
EASA export certificate of airworthiness, or
within 3 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii) Within 20 months since the last
inspection of the elevators for excessive
freeplay performed in accordance with Task
27–34–00–200–001 of the Airbus A320
Airplane Maintenance Manual.
(2) If any inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD indicates that the freeplay in
the elevator exceeds 7 millimeters, before
further flight, repair the elevator or servo
controls in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA (or its
delegated agent).
(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 EASA Airworthiness
Directive 2007–0163, dated June 11, 2007, for
related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August
3, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–19419 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
FAA AD Differences
Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI
and/or service information as follows:
(1) The EASA AD applies to Airbus Model
A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes, but the FAA AD applies only to
Airbus Model A318 series airplanes. The
actions required by the EASA AD for Airbus
Model A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes are addressed in FAA AD 2001–16–
09, amendment 39–12377, and FAA AD
2005–22–10 R1, amendment 39–14354.
(2) This FAA AD does not require
modification of the elevator neutral setting as
specified in paragraph 2. of the EASA AD
because this modification is already part of
the FAA-approved type design for Airbus
Model A318 series airplanes.
(3) This FAA AD does not require a
detailed inspection to determine the position
of each tail cone triangle as specified in
paragraph 3. of the EASA AD because that
action was already accomplished on all
Airbus Model A318 series airplanes during
production.
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 principal maintenance
inspector (PMI) or principal avionics
inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0712; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–152–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier
Model DHC–8–100 and DHC–8–200
Series Airplanes, and Model DHC–8–
301, –311, and –315 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT)
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier Model DHC–8–100
and DHC–8–200 series airplanes, and
DHC–8–301, –311, and –315 airplanes.
This proposed AD would require
implementing a corrosion prevention
and control program (CPCP) either by
accomplishing specific tasks or by
revising the maintenance inspection
program to include a CPCP. This
proposed AD results from the
determination that, as airplanes age,
they are more likely to exhibit
indications of corrosion. We are
proposing this AD to prevent structural
failure of the airplane due to corrosion.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by September 14,
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.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 155 (Thursday, August 13, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40776-40778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19419]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0713; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-303-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318 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:
Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when
[[Page 40777]]
the hinge moment of the elevator is close to zero, associated to
elevator free-play.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 14,
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 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-2009-0713;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-303-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 2007-0163, dated June 11, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:
Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when the hinge moment of the elevator is close
to zero, associated to elevator free-play.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. The corrective action includes
inspecting the elevators for excessive freeplay and repairing the
elevator or servo controls, if necessary. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
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. 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, 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.
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
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 11 products of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 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 $1,760, or
$160 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, 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.
[[Page 40778]]
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2009-0713; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
303-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by September 14, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes;
certificated in any category.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
``Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
``Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when the hinge moment of the elevator is close
to zero, associated to elevator free-play.''
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators,
which could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. The corrective action includes
inspecting the elevators for excessive freeplay, and repairing the
elevator or servo controls, if necessary.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, inspect the elevators for excessive
freeplay, using a load application tool and a spring scale assembly,
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 20 months.
Note 1: Guidance on the inspection procedures can be found in
Task 27-34-00-200-001 of the A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM).
(i) Within 20 months since the date of issuance of the original
French, German, or EASA airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original French, German, or EASA export certificate
of airworthiness, or within 3 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii) Within 20 months since the last inspection of the elevators
for excessive freeplay performed in accordance with Task 27-34-00-
200-001 of the Airbus A320 Airplane Maintenance Manual.
(2) If any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD
indicates that the freeplay in the elevator exceeds 7 millimeters,
before further flight, repair the elevator or servo controls in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA
(or its delegated agent).
FAA AD Differences
Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
(1) The EASA AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and
A321 series airplanes, but the FAA AD applies only to Airbus Model
A318 series airplanes. The actions required by the EASA AD for
Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes are addressed in
FAA AD 2001-16-09, amendment 39-12377, and FAA AD 2005-22-10 R1,
amendment 39-14354.
(2) This FAA AD does not require modification of the elevator
neutral setting as specified in paragraph 2. of the EASA AD because
this modification is already part of the FAA-approved type design
for Airbus Model A318 series airplanes.
(3) This FAA AD does not require a detailed inspection to
determine the position of each tail cone triangle as specified in
paragraph 3. of the EASA AD because that action was already
accomplished on all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes during
production.
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 principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.
(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
(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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0163, dated
June 11, 2007, for related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 3, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-19419 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
