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. 

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 

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. 

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 

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. 

[FR Doc. E9–19423 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

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 


sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 

http://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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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. 


sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.’’ 

* * * * * 

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 

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 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 


sroberts on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS