Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48021 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4146; fax: (816) 

329–4090; e-mail: karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC on any 

airship to which the AMOC applies, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in 

the FAA Flight Standards District Office 

(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(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 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2009–0182, 

dated August 20, 2009; and ZLT Zeppelin 

Luftschifftechnik GmbH & Co KG Service 

Bulletin S07 830 0001, Issue B–00, dated 

June 29, 2009, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

September 14, 2009. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–22641 Filed 9–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0864; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–202–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault 

Model Falcon 10 Airplanes; Model Fan 

Jet Falcon Airplanes; Model MystereFalcon 200 Airplanes; Model MystereFalcon 20–C5, 20–D5, 20–E5, and 20– 

F5 Airplanes; Model Falcon 2000 and 

Falcon 2000EX Airplanes; and Model 

Mystere-Falcon 50 and 900, and Falcon 

900EX 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 maintenance on one aircraft, it was 

discovered that the overpressure capsules 

were broken on both pressurization valves. 

Failure of the pressurization control 

regulating valve (overpressure capsule) will 

affect the aircraft’s overpressure protection. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

The unsafe condition is 

overpressurization, which can result in 

injury to the occupants and possible 

structural failure leading to loss of 

control of the airplane. 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 21, 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 Dassault 

Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South 

Hackensack, New Jersey 07606; 

telephone 201–440–6700; Internet 

http://www.dassaultfalcon.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: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1137; 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–2009–0864; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–202–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 2008–0072, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
48022 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

dated April 18, 2008 (referred to after 

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

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

During maintenance on one aircraft, it was 

discovered that the overpressure capsules 

were broken on both pressurization valves. 

Failure of the pressurization control 

regulating valve (overpressure capsule) will 

affect the aircraft’s overpressure protection, 

possibly resulting in a structural failure in 

case of combination with another 

pressurization system failure. Consequently, 

Dassault Aviation has developed a repetitive 

check of this outflow valve capsule, which 

has already been introduced into the 

Maintenance of Components section (chapter 

5–20) of the relevant Aircraft Maintenance 

Manuals (AMM). 

For the reason described above, this EASA 

[European Aviation Safety Agency] 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires a 

repetitive check of the outflow valve 

overpressure capsule, as it will also be 

introduced into the Airworthiness 

Limitations section (chapter 5–40) of the 

respective AMMs. 

The unsafe condition is 

overpressurization, which can result in 

injury to the occupants and possible 

structural failure leading to loss of 

control of the airplane. Required actions 

include repetitive inspections for 

overpressure tightness on both 

regulating valves, and replacing the 

affected valve with a serviceable unit, 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 referenced above. We are 

proposing this AD because we evaluated 

all pertinent information and 

determined an unsafe condition exists 

and is likely to exist or develop on other 

products of the same type design. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and, 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 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 1,082 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 1 work-hour 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 

$86,560, or $80 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. 

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: 

Dassault Aviation (Formerly Avions Marcel 

Dassault-Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA)): 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0864; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–202–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by October 

21, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the Dassault 

airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category. 

(1) Model Falcon 10 airplanes, Model Fan 

Jet Falcon airplanes, and Model MystereFalcon 20–C5, 20–D5, 20–E5, and 20–F5 

airplanes, all serial numbers, equipped with 

Liebherr or ABG–Semca pressurization 

outflow valves. 

(2) Model Mystere-Falcon 200 airplanes, 

Model Mystere-Falcon 50 and 900, and 

Falcon 900EX airplanes, and Model Falcon 

2000 and Falcon 2000EX airplanes, all serial 

numbers. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 21: Air Conditioning. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

During maintenance on one aircraft, it was 

discovered that the overpressure capsules 

were broken on both pressurization valves. 

Failure of the pressurization control 

regulating valve (overpressure capsule) will 

affect the aircraft’s overpressure protection, 

possibly resulting in a structural failure in 

case of combination with another 

pressurization system failure. Consequently, 

Dassault Aviation has developed a repetitive 

check of this outflow valve capsule, which 

has already been introduced into the 

Maintenance of Components section (chapter 

5–20) of the relevant Aircraft Maintenance 

Manuals (AMM). 

For the reason described above, this EASA 

[European Aviation Safety Agency] 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires a 

repetitive check of the outflow valve 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48023 

overpressure capsule, as it will also be 

introduced into the Airworthiness 

Limitations section (chapter 5–40) of the 

respective AMMs. 

The unsafe condition is overpressurization, 

which can result in injury to the occupants 

and possible structural failure leading to the 

loss of control of the airplane. Required 

actions include repetitive inspections for 

overpressure tightness on both regulating 

valves, and replacing the affected valve with 

a serviceable unit, if necessary. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, or before reaching the applicable 

time in the ‘‘Inspection Threshold’’ column 

specified in Table 1 of this AD, whichever 

occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed the applicable time in the ‘‘Inspection 

Interval’’ column specified in Table 1 of this 

AD: Inspect for overpressure tightness on 

both regulating valves using a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (or its delegated 

agent). 

TABLE 1—COMPLIANCE TIMES

Affected airplanes Inspection threshold (whichever occurs later) Inspection interval 

Fan Jet Falcon, and Mystere-Falcon 20–C5, 20–D5, 20– 

E5, and 20–F5 equipped with Liebherr or ABG–Semca 

valves part number (P/N) 209xx0xxx0x;.

Mystere-Falcon 200; and .....................................................

Prior to the accumulation of 

1,250 total flight hours on 

the regulating valve since 

new.

Within 1,250 flight hours 

after the valve was 

cleaned in accordance 

with this AD.

1,250 flight hours. 

Falcon 10, equipped with Liebherr or ABG–Semca valves 

P/N 209xx0xxx0x..

Mystere-Falcon 50; ..............................................................

Mystere-Falcon 900; and .....................................................

Falcon 900EX (including ‘‘F900EX–EASy’’ and ‘‘F900DX’’) 

Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX (including ‘‘F2000EX– 

EASy’’ and ‘‘F2000DX’’).

Prior to the accumulation of 

1,630 total flight hours on 

the regulating valve since 

new.

Within 1,630 flight hours 

after the valve was 

cleaned in accordance 

with this AD.

1,630 flight hours. 

Note 1: Guidance on inspecting for 

overpressure tightness on both regulating 

valves can be found in the applicable 

airplane maintenance manual identified in 

Table 2 of this AD. 

TABLE 2—MAINTENANCE MANUAL GUIDANCE

For affected airplanes— See Dassault maintenance procedure— In maintenance manual— 

Falcon 10, equipped with Liebherr or ABG–Semca valves P/N 

209xx0xxx0x.

21–32–01, dated July 2007 ........... Dassault Falcon 10 Maintenance 

Manual. 

Falcon 900EX (including ‘‘F900EX–EASy’’ and ‘‘F900DX’’) ................... 21–314, dated March 2007 ........... Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy 

Maintenance Manual. 

Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX (including ‘‘F2000EX–EASy’’) ........... 21–314, dated May 2007 .............. Dassault Falcon 2000EX Maintenance Manual. 

Falcon F2000DX ..................................................................................... 21–314, dated November 2007 ..... Dassault Falcon 2000DX Maintenance Manual. 

Fan Jet Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 20–C5, 20–D5, 20–E5, and 20–F5; 

equipped with Liebherr or ABG–Semca valves part number (P/N) 

209xx0xxx0x.

21–31–10, dated October 2007 .... Dassault Fan Jet Falcon Maintenance Manual. 

Mystere-Falcon 50 ................................................................................... 21–160, dated July 2007 ............... Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual. 

Mystere-Falcon 200 ................................................................................. 051.0, dated December 2007 ........ Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance 

Manual. 

Mystere-Falcon 900 ................................................................................. 21–308, dated April 2007 .............. Dassault Falcon 900 Maintenance 

Manual. 

(2) If any leak is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight, replace the affected 

valve with a serviceable unit, using a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA (or 

its delegated agent). 

Note 2: Guidance on replacing regulating 

valves can be found in the applicable 

airplane maintenance manual identified in 

Table 2 of this AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI as 

follows: Although the MCAI, in paragraph (3) 

of the compliance section, allows flight after 

leaks are found in accordance with the 

master minimum equipment list (MMEL) 

provisions, paragraph (f)(2) of this AD 

requires replacing affected valves before 

further flight. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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: Tom Rodriguez, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–1137; 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. 

The AMOC approval letter must specifically 

reference this AD. 

(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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
48024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 European Aviation 

Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2008– 

0072, dated April 18, 2008, for related 

information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 11, 2009. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–22576 Filed 9–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0789; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–185–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B2–1C, B2–203, B2K–3C, B4–103, 

B4–203, B4–2C Airplanes; Model A310 

Airplanes; and Model A300 B4–601, 

B4–603, B4–605R, B4–620, B4–622, 

and B4–622R 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: 

Cracks have been found on pylon side 

panels (upper section) at rib 8 on Airbus 

A300, A310 and A300–600 aircraft equipped 

with General Electric engines. Investigation 

of these findings indicates that this problem 

is likely to affect aircraft of this type design 

with other engine installations. This 

condition, if not corrected, can lead to 

reduced strength [structural integrity] of the 

pylon primary structure. 

The unsafe condition is reduced 

structural integrity of the pylon primary 

structure, which could cause 

detachment of the engine from the 

fuselage. 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 November 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—EAW 

(Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point 

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 

France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax 

+33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail: 

account.airworth-eas@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: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2125; 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–2009–0789; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–185–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 have lengthened the 30-day 

comment period for proposed ADs that 

address MCAI originated by aviation 

authorities of other countries to provide 

adequate time for interested parties to 

submit comments. The comment period 

for these proposed ADs is now typically 

45 days, which is consistent with the 

comment period for domestic transport 

ADs. 

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 2008–0181, 

dated October 1, 2008 (referred to after 

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

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Cracks have been found on pylon side 

panels (upper section) at rib 8 on Airbus 

A300, A310 and A300–600 aircraft equipped 

with General Electric engines. Investigation 

of these findings indicates that this problem 

is likely to affect aircraft of this type design 

with other engine installations. This 

condition, if not corrected, can lead to 

reduced strength [structural integrity] of the 

pylon primary structure. 

In order to detect any crack propagation at 

an early stage, thus avoiding an extensive 

repair, Airbus issued Service Bulletins (SB) 

A300–54–0075, A310–54–2018 and A300– 

54–6015. * * * 

This AD requires the implementation of 

this * * * inspection programme. 

The unsafe condition is reduced 

structural integrity of the pylon primary 

structure, which could cause 

detachment of the engine from the 

fuselage. Required actions include 

repetitive detailed visual inspections, or 

repetitive eddy current and detailed 

visual inspections, to detect cracks, 

depending on the airplane 

configuration, and corrective actions if 

necessary. The corrective actions 

include repairing the cracking, and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS