Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 397

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–82–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300–600 and A310 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Airbus A300–600 and A310

series airplanes. This proposal would

require repetitive high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspections to detect

cracking of the inner flange of fuselage

frame FR73A, between beams 5 and 7,

and corrective actions, if necessary. This

proposal is prompted by issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct fatigue

cracking of the inner flange of fuselage

frame FR73A, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the

fuselage.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

82–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. 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:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

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 notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

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 notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 99–NM–82–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.

99–NM–82–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A300–600 and A310 series

airplanes on which a certain fuselage

frame FR73A modification has been

accomplished. The DGAC advises that,

during the A330/A340 full-scale fatigue

test, a crack was found on the righthand side of fuselage frame FR73A

between beams 5 and 6. The crack ran

the full width of the inner flange and

extended 1.3 inches into the frame web.

Such cracking, if not detected and

corrected, could result in reduced

structural integrity of the fuselage.

Identical Structures

Frame FR73A of Airbus Model A330/

A340 series airplanes is identical to

frame FR73A of certain Model A300–

600 and A310 series airplanes.

Therefore, Model A300–600 and A310

series airplanes are also subject to the

unsafe condition identified by this

proposed AD.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins

A310–53–2107 (for Model A310 series

airplanes) and A300–53–6116 (for

Model A300–600 series airplanes), both

Revision 01, both dated July 2, 1999.

These service bulletins describe

procedures for repetitive high frequency

eddy current (HFEC) inspections to

detect cracking of the inner flange (left

and right sides) of fuselage frame

FR73A, between beams 5 and 7; and

corrective actions, if necessary. The

corrective actions involve rework of

frame FR73A or replacement with a new

frame section between beams 5 and 7.

However, accomplishment of these

actions would not eliminate the need for

repetitive HFEC inspections.

Furthermore, the service bulletins

recommend that operators report all

findings (both positive and negative) to

Airbus.

The DGAC classified the service

bulletins as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directive 1999–

013–276(B), dated January 13, 1999, in

order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in Airbus Service Bulletins A310–53–

2107 and A300–53–6116, described

previously, except as discussed below.

398 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

The proposed AD also would require

that operators report results of

inspection findings (both positive and

negative) directly to Airbus.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Relevant Service Information

Operators should also note that,

although both service bulletins specify

that the manufacturer may be contacted

for disposition of certain repair

conditions, this proposal would require

the repair of those conditions to be

accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA or the

DGAC (or its delegated agent).

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action. The inspection reports that

would be required by this proposed AD

will enable the manufacturer to obtain

better insight into the nature, cause, and

extent of the cracking, and eventually to

develop final action to fully address the

unsafe condition. Once final action has

been identified, the FAA may consider

further rulemaking.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 198 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed inspection,

and that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $11,880, or

$60 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.

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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 99–NM–82–AD.

Applicability: Model A300–600 and A310

series airplanes, certificated in any category,

on which Airbus Modification 6925 has been

accomplished.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct fatigue cracking of

the inner flange of fuselage frame FR73A,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the fuselage, accomplish the

following:

HFEC Inspection

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total

flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later: Perform a high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking

of the inner flange (left and right sides) of the

rear fuselage frame FR73A, between beams 5

and 7, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2107, Revision 01 (for

Model A310 series airplanes), or A300–53–

6116, Revision 01 (for Model A300–600

series airplanes); both dated July 2, 1999; as

applicable.

(1) If no crack is detected, repeat the HFEC

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(2) For any crack that is less than or equal

to 0.20 inch (5.0 millimeters) in length: Prior

to further flight, accomplish either paragraph

(a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Rework the frame in accordance with

the applicable service bulletin. Within 3,000

flight cycles after accomplishing the rework,

replace the fuselage frame FR73A between

beams 5 and 7 with a new frame section in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletin. Or

(ii) Replace the fuselage frame FR73A

between beams 5 and 7 with a new frame

section, in accordance with the applicable

service bulletin.

(3) For any crack greater than 0.20 inch (5.0

millimeters) in length: Prior to further flight,

accomplish either paragraph (a)(3)(i) or

(a)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate; or the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de

l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated

agent). Or

(ii) Replace the fuselage frame FR73A

between beams 5 and 7 with a new section,

in accordance with the applicable service

bulletin.

(b) Within 18,000 flight cycles after any

replacement accomplished in accordance

with paragraph (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or (a)(3)(ii)

of this AD: Repeat the inspection specified by

paragraph (a) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat

the inspection at intervals not to exceed

5,000 flight cycles.

(c) Submit a report of inspection findings

(both positive and negative) of any inspection

required by this AD to Airbus Industrie,

Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France; at the applicable time specified in

paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD. The

report must include the inspection results, a

description of any discrepancies found, the

airplane serial number, the age of the

airplane since entry into service, and the

number of landings and flight hours on the

airplane. Information collection requirements

contained in this regulation have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2120–0056.

(1) For airplanes on which the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD is

accomplished after the effective date of this

AD: Submit the report within 10 days after

performing the inspection.

(2) For airplanes on which the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD has been

accomplished prior to the effective date of

this AD: Submit the report within 10 days

after the effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 399

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1999–013–

276(B), dated January 13, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 29, 1999.

D.L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–137 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–261–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives;

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.

(CASA) Model CN–235–100 and CN–

235–200 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

CASA Model CN–235–100 and CN–

235–200 series airplanes. This proposal

would require replacement of existing

anti-icing distributor valves with new,

improved valves. This proposal is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent ice

accumulation on the wings or tail of the

airplane, which could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

261–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.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.,

Getafe, Madrid, Spain. This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

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 notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

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 notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 99–NM–261–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.

99–NM–261–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On December 26, 1989, a British

Aerospace Jetstream Model BA–3101

series airplane impacted the ground

approximately 400 feet short of the

runway while executing an instrument

landing system (ILS) approach. The

accident occurred at the Tri-Cities

Airport, Pasco, Washington. The

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) determined that the probable

cause of the accident was the

flightcrew’s decision to continue an

unstabilized ILS approach that led to a

stall, most likely of the horizontal

stabilizer, and loss of control at low

altitude. Contributing to the stall and

loss of control was the accumulation of

leading edge ice, which degraded the

aerodynamic performance of the

airplane.

One result of the NTSB investigation

was the determination that the flight

deck wing de-icing light illuminated at

a lower pressure than the pressure

required to fully inflate the de-icing

boots. The premature illumination of

the wing de-icing light was due to a

failure within the wing de-icing boot

system, which allowed sufficient air

pressure to give the appearance of

normal operation based on the de-icing

light, without actually inflating the

boots sufficiently to remove ice.

Based on an NTSB Safety

Recommendation, the FAA reviewed

the pneumatic de-icing boot system

designs for airplanes operated under

parts 121 and 135 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations to ensure that the

pneumatic pressure threshold at which

each de-icing boot indication light is

designed to illuminate is sufficient

pressure for effective operation of the

pneumatic de-icing boots. The FAA has

determined that the existing design of

the flight deck pneumatic de-icing boot

pressure indicator switch on CASA

Model CN–235–100 and CN–235–200

series airplanes may allow the flight

deck indicator light to illuminate at a

lower pressure than the pressure

required to fully inflate the de-icing

boots [15 pounds per square inch gage

(psig)]. Illumination of the light at a

lower pressure would indicate to the

flightcrew that the pneumatic ice boots

are operating normally, though the boots

may not be sufficiently inflated to shed

ice. This condition, if not corrected,

could result in ice accumulation on the

wings or tail of the airplane, which

could result in reduced controllability

of the airplane.