Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45777 

handling of pistachios. After the rework 

procedure has been completed, the total 

weight of the accepted product and the 

total weight of the rejected product shall 

be reported to the committee. The 

reworked lot shall be sampled and 

tested for aflatoxin as specified in 

§ 983.150, except that the lot sample 

size and the test sample size shall be 

doubled. If, after the lot has been 

reworked and tested, it fails the 

aflatoxin test for a second time, the lot 

may be shelled and the kernels 

reworked, sampled, and tested in the 

manner specified for an original lot of 

kernels, or the failed lot may be used for 

non-human consumption or otherwise 

disposed of. 

(b) Kernel rework procedure for 

aflatoxin. If pistachio kernel rework is 

selected as a remedy to meet the 

aflatoxin regulations in § 983.150, then 

100% of the product within that lot 

shall be removed from the bulk and/or 

retail packaging containers and 

reworked to remove the portion of the 

lot that caused the failure. Reworking 

shall consist of mechanical, electronic, 

or manual procedures normally used in 

the handling of pistachios. After the 

rework procedure has been completed, 

the total weight of the accepted product 

and the total weight of the rejected 

product shall be reported to the 

committee. The reworked lot shall be 

sampled and tested for aflatoxin as 

specified in § 983.150. 

§ 983.170 [Removed] 

8. Section 983.170 is removed. 

9. Amend § 983.253 by removing the 

word ‘‘California’’ in paragraph (a), and 

by revising paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 983.253 Assessment rate. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each handler who receives 

pistachios for processing shall furnish 

the Receipts/Assessment Report and pay 

all due assessments to the committee by 

December 15 of the applicable 

production year. 

Dated: August 31, 2009. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–21352 Filed 9–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0810; Notice No. 09– 

10] 

RIN 2120–AJ21 

Design Maneuvering Speed Limitation 

Statement 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend the 

airworthiness standards applicable to 

transport category airplanes to clarify 

that flying at or below the design 

maneuvering speed does not allow a 

pilot to make multiple large control 

inputs in one airplane axis or single full 

control inputs in more than one airplane 

axis at a time without endangering the 

airplane’s structure. This proposed 

regulation is the result of an accident 

investigation and responds to a National 

Transportation Safety Board 

recommendation. The results of the 

accident investigation indicate that 

many pilots might have a general 

misunderstanding of what the design 

maneuvering speed (VA) is and the 

extent of structural protection that exists 

when an airplane is operated at speeds 

below its VA. This action is being taken 

to prevent this misunderstanding from 

causing or contributing to a future 

accident. 

DATES: 

Send your comments on or before 

November 3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number [Insert 

docket number, for example, FAA– 

200X–XXXXX] using any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket. Or, go to Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical Information: Don Stimson, 

FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew 

Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–1129; facsimile 

(425) 227–1149, e-mail 

don.stimson@faa.gov. 

Legal Information: Douglas Anderson, 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

ANM–7, Northwest Mountain Region, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2166; 

facsimile (425) 227–1007, e-mail 

douglas.anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
45778 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing minimum 

standards required in the interest of 

safety for the design and performance of 

aircraft; regulations and minimum 

standards in the interest of safety for 

inspecting, servicing, and overhauling 

aircraft; and regulations for other 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it prescribes— 

• New safety standards for the design 

and performance of transport category 

airplanes; and 

• New safety requirements that are 

necessary for the design, production, 

operations, and maintenance of those 

airplanes, and for other practices, 

methods, and procedures relating to 

those airplanes. 

Background 

On November 12, 2001, American 

Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus Industrie 

Model A300–605R airplane, crashed 

shortly after takeoff from New York’s 

John F. Kennedy International Airport. 

All 260 people aboard the airplane and 

5 people on the ground were killed. The 

airplane was destroyed by impact forces 

and a post-crash fire. The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

determined ‘‘that the probable cause of 

this accident was the in-flight 

separation of the vertical stabilizer as a 

result of the loads beyond ultimate 

design loads that were created by the 

first officer’s unnecessary and excessive 

rudder pedal inputs.’’ 

The NTSB’s investigation revealed 

that many pilots might have a general 

misunderstanding of what the design 

maneuvering speed (VA) is and the 

extent of structural protection that exists 

when an airplane is operated at speeds 

below its VA. The NTSB found that 

many pilots of transport category 

airplanes believe that, as long as they 

are below the airplane’s VA, they can 

make any control input they desire 

without risking structural damage to the 

airplane. 

VA is a structural design airspeed 

used in determining the strength 

requirements for the airplane and its 

control surfaces. The structural loads 

resulting from certain movements of the 

control surfaces at or below VA must be 

taken into account during the design of 

a transport category airplane. The 

structural design standards only 

consider a single full control input in 

any single axis. The design standards 

also consider an abrupt return of the 

rudder control to the neutral position. 

The standards do not address full 

control inputs in more than one axis at 

the same time or multiple inputs in the 

same axis. Therefore, the structural 

design requirements do not ensure the 

airplane structure can withstand 

multiple control inputs in one axis or 

control inputs in more than one axis at 

a time at any speed, even below VA. 

The NTSB investigation identified 

what appears to be a widespread 

misunderstanding among pilots about 

the degree of structural protection that 

exists when full or abrupt flight control 

inputs are made at airspeeds below an 

airplane’s VA. As a result, the NTSB 

recommended that the FAA amend all 

relevant regulatory and advisory 

materials to clarify that operating at or 

below maneuvering speed does not 

provide structural protection against 

multiple full control inputs in one axis 

or full control inputs in more than one 

axis at the same time. (See NTSB safety 

recommendation A–04–060, which is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking or can be found at http:// 

www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/ 

A04_56_62.pdf.) 

14 CFR 25.1583(a)(3) currently 

requires applicants to provide the VA, 

along with the following statement, in 

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM): 

‘‘Full application of rudder and aileron 

controls, as well as maneuvers that 

involve angles of attack near the stall, 

should be confined to speeds below this 

value.’’ Although the required AFM 

statement warns pilots against making 

full rudder or aileron control inputs at 

speeds above VA, it is silent on what 

control inputs can safely be made below 

VA. Pilots may misinterpret the AFM 

statement to imply that any control 

input can safely be made below VA. 

At the FAA’s request, manufacturers 

of transport category airplanes 

voluntarily revised the AFMs for all 

major transport category airplane types 

currently in service to include a 

statement similar to the following: 

Avoid rapid and large alternating 

control inputs, especially in 

combination with large changes in 

pitch, roll, or yaw (e.g., large sideslip 

angles) as they may result in structural 

failures at any speed, including below 

VA. 

General Discussion of Proposal 

For future airplane designs, this 

NPRM proposes to amend 

§ 25.1583(a)(3) to change the 

requirement associated with the 

statement to be provided in the AFM. 

The proposed amendment would clarify 

that flying at or below VA does not allow 

a pilot to make multiple large control 

inputs in one airplane axis or single full 

control inputs in more than one airplane 

axis at a time without endangering the 

airplane’s structure. 

Instead of specifying the exact 

wording of the statement or set of 

statements to be included in the AFM, 

the proposed rule would require 

statements, as applicable to the 

particular design, explaining that: 

(1) Full application of pitch, roll, or 

yaw controls should be confined to 

speeds below VA; and 

(2) Rapid and large alternating control 

inputs, especially in combination with 

large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and 

full control inputs in more than one axis 

at the same time should be avoided as 

they may result in structural failures at 

any speed, including below VA. 

This proposed language would give 

applicants the flexibility to provide the 

required safety information in a way 

that would best fit their airplane design. 

The proposed revision would only 

require that the warning statement be 

included in the AFM if it is applicable. 

A warning statement would be 

unnecessary if the airplane is protected 

from structural damage against all types 

of control inputs at any speed. 

The terms ‘‘rudder and aileron 

controls’’ in the existing requirement 

would be replaced by ‘‘pitch, roll, and/ 

or yaw controls.’’ Rudders and ailerons 

are airplane control surfaces commonly 

used to provide control in the yaw and 

roll axes, respectively. However, other 

control surfaces may be used to either 

provide or augment control in any given 

axis. The pilot may not always know 

which control surface is being moved 

for any given control input. Since the 

statement required by § 25.1583(a)(3) is 

an operating limitation that must be 

observed by the pilot, the proposed text 

refers to the pilot control inputs by 

control axis rather than by control 

surface. 

In addition, the existing text ‘‘as well 

as maneuvers that involve angles of 

attack near the stall’’ would be removed. 

The existing text assumes that, for high 

angle of attack maneuvers below VA, the 

airplane will always stall before 

structural failure can occur. However, 

this is not always the case. In a pitchup maneuver, if the pitch rate is rapidly 

increased through an abrupt pitch input, 

a phenomenon known as dynamic 

overshoot may occur. A dynamic 

overshoot can result in exceeding the 

airplane’s structural limits before the 

airplane stalls. Also, the airplane 

manufacturer may choose to select a 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45779 

higher VA than the minimum value 

required by 14 CFR part 25 certification 

requirements. This results in a 

structurally stronger airplane, but does 

not ensure the airplane will stall before 

structural failure occurs. The proposed 

revision addresses these concerns by 

making the limitation against full 

application of the roll and yaw controls 

also applicable to the pitch axis and by 

removing the words ‘‘as well as 

maneuvers that involve angles of attack 

near the stall.’’ 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this proposed rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: Since this 

proposed rule would merely require a 

clarifying change to a statement that 

manufacturers are currently required to 

provide in the AFM, and there are no 

changes required to airplane design, 

test, or analysis, the expected outcome 

will be minimal costs. The clarification 

addresses an identified safety issue, so 

the proposed rule has benefits. Because 

the outcome of the proposed rule is 

expected to have minimal costs with 

positive benefits, a regulatory evaluation 

was not prepared. The FAA requests 

comments with supporting justification 

about the FAA determination of 

minimal impact. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA believes this proposed rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because all United States transportaircraft category manufacturers exceed 

the Small Business Administration 

small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

safety, and does not operate in a manner 

that excludes imports that meet this 

objective. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

proposed rule and determined that it 

ensures the safety of the American 

public. As a result, this rule is not 

considered as creating an unnecessary 

obstacle to foreign commerce. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
45780 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action 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, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in title 14 of the 

CFR in a manner affecting intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, to consider the 

extent to which Alaska is not served by 

transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish appropriate 

regulatory distinctions. Because this 

proposed rule would apply to the 

certification of future designs of 

transport category airplanes and their 

subsequent operation, it could, if 

adopted, affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. The FAA, therefore, specifically 

requests comments on whether there is 

justification for applying the proposed 

rule differently in intrastate operations 

in Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 4(j) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Plain English 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993) requires each agency to 

write regulations that are simple and 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

unnecessary technical language or 

jargon that interferes with their clarity? 

• Would the regulations be easier to 

understand if they were divided into 

more (but shorter) sections? 

• Is the description in the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

regulations? 

Please send your comments to the 

address specified in the Addresses 

section of this preamble. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations part 25, as 

follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45781 

2. Amend § 25.1583 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 25.1583 Operating limitations. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The maneuvering speed VA and 

statements, as applicable to the 

particular design, explaining that: 

(i) Full application of pitch, roll, or 

yaw controls should be confined to 

speeds below VA; and 

(ii) Rapid and large alternating control 

inputs, especially in combination with 

large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and 

full control inputs in more than one axis 

at the same time, should be avoided as 

they may result in structural failures at 

any speed, including below VA. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 

2009. 

Dorenda D. Baker, 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21478 Filed 9–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0782; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–011–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –243, 

–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, 

–341, –342, and –343 Series Airplanes; 

and Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, 

–312, and –313 Series Airplanes; and 

A340–541 and –642 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: 

During a scheduled maintenance 

inspection on the MLG [main landing gear], 

the bogie stop pad was found deformed and 

cracked. Upon removal of the bogie stop pad 

for replacement, the bogie beam was also 

found cracked. 

* * * * * 

A second bogie beam crack has 

subsequently been found on another aircraft, 

located under a bogie stop pad which only 

had superficial paint damage. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could result in the aircraft 

departing the runway or to the bogie 

detaching from the aircraft or gear collapses, 

which would all constitute unsafe conditions 

at speeds above 30 knots. 

* * * * * 

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 October 5, 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. 

• For service information identified 

in this proposed AD, contact Airbus 

SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 

Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 

45 80; e-mail airworthiness.A330- 

A340@airbus.com; Internet http:// 

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 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: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1138; 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–2009–0782; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–011–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 2008–0223, 

dated December 15, 2008 (referred to 

after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

During a scheduled maintenance 

inspection on the MLG [main landing gear], 

the bogie stop pad was found deformed and 

cracked. Upon removal of the bogie stop pad 

for replacement, the bogie beam was also 

found cracked. 

Laboratory investigation indicates that an 

overload event has occurred and no fatigue 

propagation of the crack was evident. An 

investigation is still underway to establish 

the root cause of this overload. 

A second bogie beam crack has 

subsequently been found on another aircraft, 

located under a bogie stop pad which only 

had superficial paint damage. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could result in the aircraft 

departing the runway or to the bogie 

detaching from the aircraft or gear collapses, 

which would all constitute unsafe conditions 

at speeds above 30 knots. 

As a precautionary measure, this AD 

requires detailed inspections under the bogie 

stop pad of both MLG bogie beams and, in 

case deformation or damage is detected, to 

apply the associated repair. 

The one-time inspections consist of the 

following: 

• Inspection for corrosion and 

damage to the paint and cadmium plate 

of the sliding piston subassembly. 

• Inspection for cracking and 

deformation of the top and bottom 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS