This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

15353 

Vol. 75, No. 59 

Monday, March 29, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0003; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–251–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330–200 and –300 Series Airplanes, 

and A340–200, –300, –500 and –600 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

NPRM for the products listed above. 

This action revises the earlier NPRM by 

expanding the scope. This 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: Several cases of corrosion 

and damage on the Down Drive Shafts 

(DDS), between the Down Drive Gear 

Box (DDGB) and the Input Gear Box 

(IPGB), on all 10 Flap Tracks (5 per 

wing), have been reported by AIRBUS 

Long Range Operators. Investigations 

have revealed that corrosion and wear 

due to absence of grease in the spline 

interfaces could cause [DDS] 

disconnection which could result in a 

free movable flap surface, potentially 

leading to aircraft asymmetry or even 

flap detachment. 

The unsafe condition could reduce 

the ability of the flightcrew to maintain 

the safe flight and landing of the 

airplane. The proposed AD would 

require actions to correct the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 23, 2010. 

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; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; 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, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 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–2009–0003; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–251–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 

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with an earlier NPRM for the 

specified products, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 13, 2009 (74 FR 1649). That 

earlier NPRM proposed to correct an 

unsafe condition for the products listed 

above. 

Since that NPRM was issued, we have 

determined that the actions specified in 

paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the NPRM need to 

be clarified in order for us to provide 

adequate notice and opportunity for 

public comment. Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of 

the NPRM specifies to inspect flap 

tracks 2 and 4 and do all applicable 

corrective actions (replacing damaged 

parts). This supplemental NPRM would 

also require inspecting flap tracks 1, 3, 

and 5. 

Explanation of Revised Service 

Information 

Airbus has issued the revised service 

information specified in the following 

table. We have added the applicable 

revised service information to paragraph 

(g) of this supplemental NPRM as the 

appropriate sources of service 

information for accomplishing the 

required actions. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15354 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus mandatory service bulletin— Revision— Dated— 

A330–27–3151, including Appendix 01 ....................................................................................................... 01 March 19, 2008. 

A330–27–3152, including Appendices 1 and 2 ........................................................................................... 01 March 19, 2008. 

A330–27–3152, including Appendices 1 and 2 ........................................................................................... 02 September 23, 2008. 

A340–27–4151, including Appendix 01 ....................................................................................................... 01 March 19, 2008. 

A340–27–4152, including Appendices 1 and 2 ........................................................................................... 01 March 19, 2008. 

A340–27–4152, including Appendices 1 and 2 ........................................................................................... 02 September 23, 2008. 

A340–27–5040, including Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................... 01 March 19, 2008. 

A340–27–5040, including Appendix 01 ....................................................................................................... 02 September 23, 2008. 

No additional work is necessary for 

airplanes on which the actions specified 

in the service information in the 

following table, and referred to in the 

original NPRM as the appropriate 

sources of service information for doing 

the proposed actions, were done. 

CREDIT SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus mandatory service bulletin— Revision— Dated— 

A330–27–3151 ..................................................................................................... Original .................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A330–27–3152 ..................................................................................................... Original .................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A340–27–4151 ..................................................................................................... Original .................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A340–27–4152 ..................................................................................................... Original .................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A340–27–5040 ..................................................................................................... Original .................................................. August 9, 2007. 

We have added a new paragraph (g)(3) 

to this AD to include credit for previous 

accomplishment of the specified actions 

using the applicable service information 

listed in the Credit Service Information 

table, above. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments received on the earlier 

NPRM. 

Request To Clarify Actions in the Latest 

Service Bulletin Revisions 

The Air Transport Association (ATA), 

on behalf of Northwest Airlines (NWA), 

states that the service bulletins referred 

to in the original NPRM have been 

revised and asks which revisions of the 

service bulletins should be used to 

accomplish the actions. NWA notes that 

the inspection procedures specified in 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A330–27–3152, Revision 02, dated 

September 23, 2008, are more restrictive 

than those in the original issue of 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A330–27–3152, dated August 9, 2007. 

NWA adds that the original issue of 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A330–27–3152, dated August 9, 2007, 

does not specify parts replacement for 

Type 1 and Type 2 category findings 

during the inspection; however, Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27– 

3152, Revision 02, specifies replacement 

of the input gear box (IPGB) within 18 

months. NWA asks that the intent of the 

inspection and replacement 

requirements be clarified. 

We agree that some clarification is 

necessary, as follows. As stated 

previously, the latest revisions of Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletins A330–27– 

3152, Revision 02, and A340–27–4151, 

Revision 01, are cited in the 

supplemental NPRM for accomplishing 

the proposed actions. The changes in 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins 

A330–27–3152, Revision 02, and A340– 

27–4151, Revision 01, are minor and no 

additional work is necessary for 

airplanes on which the actions have 

been done using those revisions. 

The NPRM proposed to require 

replacing all damaged parts before 

further flight, regardless of the type of 

damage; however, the revised service 

information changed the actions for 

Type 2 damaged parts from ‘‘no 

replacement required’’ to ‘‘replacement 

within 18 months.’’ This action is only 

applicable if Type 2 damaged parts are 

found. It is not necessary to replace 

Type 1 damaged parts. 

Requests To Extend Compliance Time 

ATA, on behalf of its member NWA, 

also notes that the compliance time of 

18 months for the IPGB replacement, 

and a compliance time of 20 months for 

the initial inspection, as specified in 

paragraph (g)(2) of the original NPRM, 

should be extended to 24 months to 

align with its ‘‘C’’ check intervals. NWA 

adds that the Airbus service information 

refers to General Electric (Smiths) 

Service Bulletin 6975–27–018, dated 

August 2007, to define Type 2 damage 

findings. NWA states that allowing a 24- 

month compliance period, instead of 18 

months, for Type 2 damage findings on 

airplanes up to 6 years old would still 

require IPGB replacement within 8 years 

since the airworthiness certification 

date, which is substantially less than the 

12 years specified in the Airbus service 

information and the EASA AD. In 

addition, NWA notes that new grease is 

applied to the splined area following the 

6-year inspection, reducing additional 

wear and corrosion during the 24-month 

period before IPGB replacement. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request that the compliance time should 

be extended to 24 months to align with 

‘‘C’’ check intervals. In developing an 

appropriate compliance time for this 

action, we considered the urgency 

associated with the subject unsafe 

condition, the availability of required 

parts, and the practical aspect of 

accomplishing the required actions 

within a period of time that corresponds 

to the normal scheduled maintenance 

for most affected operators. In light of 

these items, we have determined that an 

18-month compliance time for the IPGB 

replacement, and a 20-month 

compliance time for the inspections 

specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this 

supplemental NPRM, are appropriate. 

However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (h)(1) of the supplemental 

NPRM, we will consider requests to 

adjust the compliance time if sufficient 

data are submitted to substantiate that 

the new compliance time would provide 

an acceptable level of safety. We have 

made no change to the original NPRM 

in this regard. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 15355 

Another commenter, Elvio Marinelli, 

asks that the compliance time of ‘‘before 

further flight’’ for doing the corrective 

actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i), 

(f)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(iv), and (f)(2) of 

the original NPRM, be changed to match 

the language in the EASA AD which 

requires accomplishing the corrective 

actions within the compliance time 

defined in Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletins A330–27–3152 and A340–27– 

4151. The commenter adds that the 

compliance time in Airbus Mandatory 

Service Bulletins A330–27–3152 and 

A340–27–4151 allows continued flight 

with a certain extent of damage to the 

down drive shafts (DDS) and the IPGB, 

which defers the replacement. 

We acknowledge that the original 

NPRM proposed to require replacing all 

damaged parts before further flight, 

regardless of type of damage; however, 

the revised service information changed 

the actions for Type 2 damaged parts. 

Therefore, we have revised this 

supplemental NPRM to clarify that Type 

3 damaged parts must be repaired before 

further flight and that certain Type 2 

damaged parts must be repaired within 

18 months. It is not necessary to replace 

Type 1 damaged parts. 

Request To Remove Reporting 

Requirement 

ATA, on behalf of its member NWA, 

asks that the requirement to report 

inspection findings to Airbus be 

removed from the original NPRM. NWA 

states that the referenced Airbus service 

information specifies that findings from 

each inspection be sent to Airbus. NWA 

asks that the original NPRM clearly state 

that this is not a requirement. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request that the reporting requirement 

should be removed from this 

supplemental NPRM, or language added 

to state that no reporting is required. We 

have determined that reporting the 

inspection findings will enable the 

manufacturer to obtain better insight 

into the prevalence of the damage. 

Access to all findings will also help the 

manufacturer to develop final action to 

address the identified unsafe condition 

in a timely manner. We have made no 

change to the proposed AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Include Parts Cost 

ATA, on behalf of its member NWA, 

asks that a parts cost of $11,000 per 

airplane for the corrective action be 

added to the original NPRM. ATA states 

that the cost of compliance is 

underestimated because the parts cost 

was not included. NWA notes that 

industry data provided by Airbus 

indicate that 10 to 15 percent of all DDS 

and IPGB parts inspected require 

replacement. NWA adds that using 

these industry findings, rates and repair 

costs provided to NWA by the supplier 

are approximately $11,000. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request that the parts cost be included 

in this supplemental NPRM. The data in 

the Costs of Compliance section (below) 

are limited to the cost of actions actually 

required by the supplemental NPRM. 

The cost analysis in AD rulemaking 

actions does not include the costs of 

‘‘on-condition’’ actions (e.g., ‘‘repair or 

replace, if necessary’’) or replacement 

parts that are necessary when doing 

those on-condition actions. Regardless 

of AD direction, those actions would be 

required to correct an unsafe condition 

identified on an airplane and ensure 

operation of that airplane in an 

airworthy condition. Therefore, we have 

made no change to the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

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 and service information 

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. 

Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the earlier NPRM. 

As a result, we have determined that it 

is necessary to reopen the comment 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this proposed AD. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information 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 and related 

service information. 

We might also have required different 

actions in this AD from those in the 

MCAI in order to follow our FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a Note within the AD. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the original NPRM, 

we have increased the labor rate used in 

the Costs of Compliance from $80 per 

work hour to $85 per work hour. The 

Costs of Compliance information, 

below, reflects this increase in the 

specified hourly labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD affects 

about 41 products of U.S. registry. We 

also estimate that it takes about 65 

work-hours per product to comply with 

the basic requirements of this proposed 

AD. The average labor rate is $85 per 

work-hour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of the proposed AD on 

U.S. operators to be $226,525, or $5,525 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15356 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, Incorporation by reference, 

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–2009–0003; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–251–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by April 23, 

2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330– 

201, –202, –203, –223, –243, –301, –302, 

–303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 

series airplanes, A340–211, –212, –213, –311, 

–312, –313, series airplanes, and A340–541 

and –642 airplanes, certificated in any 

category; all certified models, all 

manufacturer serial numbers. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27: Flight Controls. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Several cases of corrosion and damage on 

the Down Drive Shafts (DDS), between the 

Down Drive Gear Box (DDGB) and the Input 

Gear Box (IPGB), on all 10 Flap Tracks (5 per 

wing), have been reported by AIRBUS Long 

Range Operators. 

Investigations have revealed that corrosion 

and wear due to absence of grease in the 

spline interfaces could cause [DDS] 

disconnection which could result in a free 

movable flap surface, potentially leading to 

aircraft asymmetry or even flap detachment. 

Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 

2007–0222–E mandated on all aircraft older 

than 6 years since AIRBUS original delivery 

date of the aircraft, an initial inspection of all 

DDS and IPGB for corrosion and wear 

detection in order to replace any damaged 

part. 

Revision 1 of EAD 2007–0222–E aimed for 

clarifying the compliance instructions. 

[EASA AD 2008–0026] supersedes the EAD 

2007–0222R1–E and mandates repetitive 

inspections every 6 years for all the fleet. 

The unsafe condition could reduce the ability 

of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight 

and landing of the airplane. The corrective 

actions include replacing damaged parts. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Actions 

(g) Do the applicable inspections and 

corrective actions specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance 

with the instructions of the applicable 

service information specified in Table 1 of 

this AD. 

TABLE 1—SERVICE INFORMATION

For model— Use airbus mandatory service bulletin— For actions specified in paragraph— 

A330–200 and –300 series airplanes ............... A330–27–3151, Revision 01, dated March 19, 

2008.

(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

A330–200 and –300 series airplanes ............... A330–27–3152, Revision 02, dated September 23, 2008.(g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2) of this AD. 

A340–200 and –300 series airplanes ............... A340-27-4151, Revision 01, dated March 19, 

2008.

(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

A340–200 and –300 series airplanes ............... A340–27–4152, Revision 02, dated September 23, 2008.(g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2) of this AD. 

A340–541 and –642 series airplanes ............... A340–27–5040, Revision 02, dated September 23, 2008.(g)(2) of this AD. 

(1) For Model A330–200 and –300 series 

airplanes, up to and including manufacturer 

serial number (MSN) 0420, and Model A340– 

200 and –300 series airplanes, up to and 

including MSN 0415, except MSNs 0385 and 

0395: Do the applicable actions specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(iii), and 

(g)(1)(iv) of this AD at the applicable time 

specified. 

(i) For airplanes on which less than 10 

years have accumulated since the date of 

issuance of the original French standard 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original French or EASA 

export certificate of airworthiness as of the 

effective date of this AD: Within 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD, perform 

simultaneous detailed visual inspections of 

the IPGB and of the DDS on all flap tracks 

on both wings for corrosion and wear 

detection and do all applicable corrective 

actions. For Type 3 damaged parts, do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB parts, do all 

applicable corrective actions within 18 

months after doing the inspection. 

(ii) For airplanes on which 10 or more 

years have accumulated since the date of 

issuance of the original French standard 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original French or EASA 

export certificate of airworthiness as of the 

effective date of this AD: Within 4 months 

after the effective date of this AD, perform 

simultaneous detailed visual inspections of 

the IPGB and of the DDS on flap tracks 2 and 

4 on both wings for corrosion and wear 

detection. For any Type 3 damaged parts on 

flap tracks 2 and 4, do all applicable 

corrective actions before further flight. For 

any Type 2 damaged IPGB parts on flap 

tracks 2 and 4, do all applicable corrective 

actions within 18 months after doing the 

inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of 

this AD. 

(A) For wings on which Type 3 damage is 

found on the DDS of flap track 2 or 4, 

perform simultaneous detailed visual 

inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on 

flap track 3 on both wings for corrosion and 

wear detection. For Type 3 damaged parts on 

flap track 3, do all applicable corrective 

actions before further flight. For Type 2 

damaged IPGB parts, on flap track 3, do all 

applicable corrective actions within 18 

months after doing the inspection required 

by paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD. 

(1) For wings on which Type 3 damage is 

found on the DDS of flap track 3, before 

further flight, perform simultaneous detailed 

visual inspections of the IPGB and of the 

DDS on flap tracks 1 and 5 on both wings for 

corrosion and wear detection. For Type 3 

damaged parts on flap tracks 1 and 5, do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB parts on 

flap tracks 1 and 5, do all applicable 

corrective actions within 18 months after 

doing the inspection required by paragraph 

(g)(1)(ii)(A)(1) of this AD. 

(2) For wings on which no Type 3 damage 

is found on the DDS of flap track 3, within 

18 months after doing the inspection 

required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 15357 

perform simultaneous detailed visual 

inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on 

flap tracks 1 and 5 on both wings for 

corrosion and wear detection. For any Type 

3 damaged parts on flap tracks 1 and 5, do 

all applicable corrective actions before 

further flight. For any Type 2 damaged IPGB 

parts on flap tracks 1 and 5, do all applicable 

corrective actions within 18 months after 

doing the inspection required by paragraph 

(g)(1)(ii)(A)(2) of this AD. 

(B) For wings on which no Type 3 damage 

is found on the DDS of flap track 2 and 4: 

Within 18 months after doing the inspection 

required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, 

perform simultaneous detailed visual 

inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on 

flap tracks 1, 3, and 5 on both wings for 

corrosion and wear detection. For any Type 

3 damaged parts on flap tracks 1, 3, and 5, 

do all applicable corrective actions before 

further flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB parts 

on flap tracks 1, 3, and 5, do all applicable 

corrective actions within 18 months after 

doing the inspection required by paragraph 

(g)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(iii) Within 30 days after performing an 

initial inspection required by paragraph 

(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, or within 30 

days after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later, report the initial 

inspection results only, whatever they are, to 

Airbus as specified in the reporting sheet of 

the applicable service information listed in 

Table 1 of this AD. 

(iv) Within 6 years after performing the 

applicable inspection required by paragraph 

(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and thereafter 

at intervals not exceeding 6 years: Perform 

simultaneous detailed visual inspections of 

the IPGB and of the DDS on all flap tracks 

on both wings for corrosion and wear 

detection and do all applicable corrective 

actions. For Type 3 damaged parts, do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB parts, do all 

applicable corrective actions within 18 

months after doing the inspection. 

(2) For airplanes other than those 

identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: 

Within 6 years after issuance of the original 

French standard airworthiness certificate or 

the date of issuance of the original French or 

EASA export certificate of airworthiness, or 

within 20 months after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later; and 

thereafter at intervals not exceeding 6 years; 

perform simultaneous detailed visual 

inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on 

all flap tracks on both wings for corrosion 

and wear detection and do all applicable 

corrective actions. For Type 3 damaged parts, 

do all applicable corrective actions before 

further flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB 

parts, do all applicable corrective actions 

within 18 months after doing the inspection. 

(3) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with the applicable 

service information specified in Table 2 of 

this AD are acceptable for compliance with 

the corresponding requirements of this AD. 

TABLE 2—CREDIT SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus mandatory service bulletin— Revision— Dated— 

A330–27–3151 ...................................................................... Original ................................................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A330–27–3152 ...................................................................... Original ................................................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A330–27–3152 ...................................................................... 01 ......................................................................................... March 19, 2008. 

A340–27–4151 ...................................................................... Original ................................................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A340–27–4152 ...................................................................... Original ................................................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A340–27–4152 ...................................................................... 01 ......................................................................................... March 19, 2008. 

A340–27–5040 ...................................................................... Original ................................................................................. August 9, 2007. 

A340–27–5040 ...................................................................... 01 ......................................................................................... March 19, 2008. 

Note 1: Airbus should be contacted in 

order to get appropriate information for 

airplanes on which the original delivery date 

of the airplane is unknown to the operator. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(h) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Vladimir 

Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International 

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–1138; 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 

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 

(i) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2008–0026, dated February 12, 

2008, and the service information specified 

in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

19, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6849 Filed 3–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0277; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–217–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 767 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD 

would require repetitive inspections to 

detect fatigue cracking in the upper 

wing skin at the fastener holes common 

to the inboard and outboard front spar 

pitch load fittings, and corrective 

actions if necessary. This proposed AD 

results from reports of cracking in the 

upper wing skin at the fastener holes 

common to the inboard and outboard 

front spar pitch load fittings. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking in the upper wing skin 

at the fastener holes common to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS