[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67869-67872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2003-NM-256-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and A340-
300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD), applicable to certain Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and 
A340-300 series airplanes, that would have required initial and 
repetitive inspections of certain frame stiffeners to detect cracking. 
If any cracking was found, that proposal would have required 
replacement of the stiffener with a new, reinforced stiffener. 
Replacement of the stiffener would constitute terminating action for 
certain inspections. That proposal would also have required a one-time 
inspection of any new, reinforced stiffener; and repair or replacement 
of the new, reinforced stiffener if any cracking was found during the 
one-time inspection. That proposal also provided for an optional 
terminating action for certain requirements of that AD. This new action 
revises the proposed rule by reducing the compliance time for the 
initial inspection of the affected frame stiffeners. The actions 
specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent fatigue 
failure of certain frame stiffener fittings, which could result in 
reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended 
to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-256-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. 
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a13074b444707445a5847494547474f445e6a4c4b4b044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86bfabe7e8ebabe8f6f4ebe5e9ebebe3e8f2c6e0e7e7a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 
contain ``Docket No. 2003-NM-256-AD'' in the subject line and need not 
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached 
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or 
ASCII text.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be 
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
227-2797; fax (425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number 
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All 
communications received on or before the closing date for comments, 
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the 
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
    <bullet> Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a 
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the 
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
    <bullet> For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
    <bullet> Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each 
request.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All 
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing 
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested 
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with 
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 2003-NM-256-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped 
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules 
Docket No. 2003-NM-256-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to 
certain Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes, was 
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 
Register on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17084). That NPRM would have required 
initial and repetitive inspections of certain frame stiffeners to 
detect cracking. If any cracking was found, that proposal would have 
required replacement of the stiffener with a new, reinforced stiffener. 
Replacement of the stiffener would constitute terminating action for 
certain inspections. That NPRM would also have required a one-time 
inspection of any new, reinforced stiffeners; and repair or replacement 
of the new, reinforced stiffener if any cracking was found during the 
one-time inspection. That NPRM also provided for an optional 
terminating action for certain requirements of that AD. That NPRM was 
prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information 
by a civil airworthiness authority. Cracking and consequent fatigue 
failure of certain frame stiffeners, if not corrected, could

[[Page 67870]]

result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

    Due consideration has been given to the comments received in 
response to the original NPRM.

No Objection to Proposed AD

    One commenter states that it does not own or operate airplanes 
affected by the original NPRM. The commenter does not have any further 
comments.

Requests To Change Compliance Time

    One commenter, the manufacturer, states that the French 
airworthiness directives mandate accomplishment of the initial 
inspection of the FR12A stiffener before the accumulation of 13,000 
total flight cycles. The original NPRM has a compliance time of within 
6 months or 13,000 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, 
whichever is later, for the initial inspection.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting that the compliance time 
of the original NPRM be revised to match what is in the parallel French 
airworthiness directives. We partially agree. The compliance time in 
paragraph (a) of this supplemental NPRM has been changed to ``Prior to 
the accumulation of 13,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after 
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.'' Although the 
French airworthiness directives do not include a grace period, we find 
it necessary to include a 6-month grace period to avoid grounding 
airplanes that have accumulated 13,000 total flight cycles or more as 
of the effective date of the AD.
    Another commenter, an operator, requests that the 6-month grace 
period in paragraph (a) of the original NPRM be extended to 18 months. 
The commenter states that it anticipates incorporation of the subject 
modification during upcoming maintenance checks, and that an 18-month 
compliance time will align with those maintenance checks. The commenter 
adds that if an operator has already accumulated more than 11,400 total 
flight cycles or 33,100 total flight hours on the airplane, the 
operator may be forced to do the subject modification outside of a 
heavy maintenance environment, which would extend the out-of-service 
time. The commenter notes that extending the grace period to 18 months 
would allow for accomplishment of the modification without specially 
scheduled downtime outside of scheduled maintenance.
    We do not agree. In developing an appropriate grace period for this 
action, we considered the safety implications, operators' normal 
maintenance schedules, and the compliance time recommended by the 
airplane manufacturer for the timely accomplishment of the required 
actions. In consideration of these items, we have determined that a 
grace period of 6 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety, and 
is an appropriate interval of time wherein the required actions can be 
accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals for the majority of 
affected operators. However, according to the provisions of paragraph 
(g) of this supplemental NPRM, we may approve a request to adjust the 
compliance time if the request includes data that justify that a 
different compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. 
This supplemental NPRM has not been changed regarding this issue.

Request To Change Cost Impact Section

    The same commenter requests that the estimated work hours for 
access and close-up of the inspection area be included in the Cost 
Impact section of the original NPRM. The commenter states that 
approximately 140 work hours will be needed for access and close-up. 
The commenter agrees with the estimate in the original NPRM that 
approximately 4 work hours will be needed to accomplish the inspection.
    We do not agree that the estimated work hours for access and close-
up of the inspection area should be included in this supplemental NPRM. 
As stated in the original NPRM, ``the cost impact figures * * * 
represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions 
actually required by the AD.'' The specific actions required by the AD 
are repetitive high-frequency eddy current inspections of the FR12A 
stiffener fitting. We expect that most operators will be able to do the 
actions specified in this supplemental NPRM during scheduled 
maintenance. We attempt to set compliance times that generally coincide 
with operators' maintenance schedules. However, because operators' 
schedules vary substantially, we cannot accommodate every operator's 
optimal scheduling in each AD. The time necessary for gaining access to 
and closing the inspection area is incidental. This supplemental NPRM 
has not been changed regarding this issue.

Request To Allow Temporary Flight With Cracking

    One commenter, the manufacturer, notes that paragraph (b) of the 
original NPRM specifies replacement of cracked FR12A stiffeners before 
further flight.
    Since the service bulletins and the parallel French airworthiness 
directives allow temporary flight with cracks of certain lengths, and 
corrective actions at various flight-cycle thresholds, we infer that 
the commenter is requesting that the original NPRM allow flight with 
cracking. We do not agree. The manufacturer did not provide data that 
showed the ultimate strength capability of a stiffener with cracking. 
Also, the manufacturer did not provide fatigue analysis that showed, 
under a load condition, that the cracking did not grow, or that the 
cracking grew at an acceptably slow rate, during the period time of 
time between the identification of the cracking and the corrective 
actions. We have determined that, due to the safety implications and 
consequences associated with such cracking, all fittings with cracking 
must be replaced before further flight. This supplemental NPRM has not 
been changed regarding this issue.

Explanation of Change to Relevant Service Information Referenced in 
This Supplemental NPRM

    Since the issuance of the original NPRM, Airbus has issued Service 
Bulletin A340-53-4141, Revision 02, dated August 13, 2004 (for Model 
A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes). (The original NPRM refers to 
A340-53-4141, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003, as the appropriate 
source of service information for the proposed actions for these 
airplanes.) Revision 02 of the service bulletin adds details to Figure 
2 and changes the identification number of the modification kits. 
Revision 02 also includes a new figure, Figure 13, that contains 
instructions for reworking a stiffener fitting. Figure 13 only pertains 
to operators that have certain modification kits. We have changed 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f) of this supplemental NPRM to 
reference Revision 02 of the service bulletin.

Explanation of Change to Paragraph (e) of This Supplemental NPRM

    Paragraph (e) of the original NPRM inadvertently referenced Airbus 
Service Bulletin A340-53-4137, dated May 26, 2003, twice. We have 
changed paragraph (e) of this supplemental NPRM to delete one of the 
references to Service Bulletin A340-53-4137, and to give credit for 
actions done before the effective date of the AD in accordance with 
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4141, dated May 26, 2003; and A340-53-
4141, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003.

Additional Change to This Supplemental NPRM

    The number of affected Airbus Model A330 airplanes has been updated 
from

[[Page 67871]]

9 to 20 in the Cost Impact section of this supplemental NPRM.

Conclusion

    Since a certain change expands the scope of the original NPRM, the 
FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to 
provide additional opportunity for public comment.

Cost Impact

    The FAA estimates that 20 Model A330 airplanes of U.S. registry 
would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 
4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, and 
that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these 
figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $5,200, or $260 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that 
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of 
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in 
the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures 
discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to 
perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures 
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to 
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other 
administrative actions.
    If an operator chooses to do the optional terminating action rather 
than continue the repetitive inspections, it would take about 74 work 
hours per airplane to accomplish the installations, at an average labor 
rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $7,860 per 
airplane. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this optional 
terminating action to be $12,670 per airplane.
    Currently, there are no affected Model A340-200 or A340-300 series 
airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, if an affected airplane is 
imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take 
approximately 4 work hours to accomplish the proposed inspection, at an 
average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, we 
estimate the cost of this AD to be $260 per airplane, per inspection 
cycle.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft 
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the 
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules 
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

Airbus: Docket 2003-NM-256-AD.

    Applicability: Model A330 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 
and A340-300 series airplanes; except those on which Airbus 
Modification 49694 has been installed; certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent fatigue failure of certain frame stiffener fittings, 
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, 
accomplish the following:

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (a) Prior to the accumulation of 13,000 total flight cycles or 
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs later: Conduct a high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) 
inspection for cracking of the FR12A stiffener fitting in accordance 
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin 
A330-53-3135, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003 (for Model A330 series 
airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4141, Revision 02, 
dated August 13, 2004 (for Model A340-200 and A340-300 series 
airplanes); as applicable. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to 
exceed 10,000 flight cycles until the replacement required by 
paragraph (b) of this AD is accomplished; or until the optional 
terminating action in paragraph (d) of this AD is accomplished. The 
actions in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this AD constitute terminating 
action for the repetitive inspections only for the side on which the 
actions are taken.

Replacement

    (b) If any cracking is detected during any inspection required 
by paragraph (a) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the 
affected FR12A stiffener with a new reinforced FR12A stiffener in 
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service 
Bulletin A330-53-3135, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003; or Airbus 
Service Bulletin A340-53-4141, Revision 02, dated August 13, 2004; 
as applicable. Replacement of the stiffener constitutes terminating 
action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (a) of 
this AD, only for the side on which the replacement is made.

Follow-On Inspection

    (c) For airplanes on which a new, reinforced stiffener is 
installed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD: Within 14,600 
flight cycles following the installation, perform an HFEC inspection 
of the FR12A stiffener fitting for cracking in accordance with 
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3135, Revision 01, dated July 7, 
2003; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4141, Revision 02, dated 
August 13, 2004; as applicable. If any cracking is detected, before 
further flight, repair or replace the new reinforced stiffener with 
a new stiffener in a manner approved by either the Manager, 
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA; or the DGAC (or its delegated 
agent).

Optional Terminating Action

    (d) Replacement of the FR12A stiffeners with new, reinforced 
stiffeners; installation of new reinforced junction fittings between 
FR12A/FR13 and FR13/FR13A at the stringer 26 level; and installation 
of a new shear web that joins the fitting to the cabin floor track; 
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service 
Bulletin A330-53-3130, Revision 01, dated October 10, 2003; or A340-
53-4137, Revision 01, dated October 10, 2003; as applicable; 
constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of 
paragraphs (a) and (c) of this AD, only for the side on which the 
replacement and installations are made.

Actions Accomplished per Previous Issues of Service Bulletins

    (e) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3130, dated May 26, 
2003; A330-53-3135, dated May 26, 2003; A340-53-4137, dated May 26, 
2003; A340-53-4141, dated May 26, 2003; or A340-53-4141, Revision 
01, dated July 7, 2003; are considered acceptable for compliance 
only with the following requirements of this AD: The HFEC 
inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD, the replacement 
required by paragraph

[[Page 67872]]

(b) of this AD, and the actions in paragraph (d) of this AD.

No Reporting Requirements

    (f) Although the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service 
Bulletin A330-53-3135, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003; and Airbus 
Service Bulletin A340-53-4141, Revision 02, dated August 13, 2004; 
describe procedures for submitting certain information to the 
manufacturer, this AD does not require those actions.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (g) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International 
Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized 
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.

    Note 1: The subject of this AD is addressed in French 
airworthiness directives 2003-205(B), dated May 28, 2003; and 2003-
206(B), dated May 28, 2003.


    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 10, 2004.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-25793 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>