51696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to European Aviation Safety 

Agency AD 2010–0075, dated April 20, 2010, 

and AD 2010–0076, dated April 20, 2010, for 

related information. 

(i) Refer to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & 

Co KG SB No. SB–BR700–72–A900492, dated 

February 12, 2010, and SB No. SB–BR700– 

72–A900497, dated February 12, 2010, for 

related information. Contact Rolls-Royce 

Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, 

Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, 

Germany, telephone: +49 (0) 33–7086–1883, 

fax: +49 (0) 33–7086–3276, for a copy of this 

service information. 

(j) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: tara.chaidez@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7773; fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

August 16, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20757 Filed 8–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0042; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–010–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, 

Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A 

(SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B 

Airplanes Modified in Accordance With 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

SA00224WI–D, ST00146WI–D, or 

SA984GL–D 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems 

Model SAAB 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and 

SAAB 340B airplanes. The original 

NPRM would have required inspecting 

the fuselage surface for corrosion and 

cracking behind the external adapter 

plate of the antennae installation, and 

repair if necessary. The original NPRM 

resulted from a report of a crack found 

behind the external adapter plate of the 

antennae during inspection. Similar 

cracking was found on two additional 

airplanes, and extensive corrosion was 

found on one airplane. This action 

revises the original NPRM by correcting 

an STC number, which would expand 

the applicability of the original NPRM. 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM to detect and correct corrosion 

and cracking behind the external 

adapter plate of the antennae of certain 

damage-tolerant structure, which could 

result in reduced structural integrity 

and consequent rapid depressurization 

of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by September 

17, 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 W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility 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 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: 

William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 

67209; telephone (316) 946–4116; fax 

(316) 946–4107. 

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–2010–0042; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–010–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 because of 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 issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that would apply to certain Saab AB, 

Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A 

(SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B 

airplanes. That original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 19, 2010 (75 FR 2829). That 

original NPRM proposed to require 

inspecting the fuselage surface for 

corrosion and cracking behind the 

external adapter plate of the antennae 

installation, and repair if necessary. 

Actions Since Original NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the original NPRM, 

we have determined that STC number 

SA00244WI–D, identified in the 

applicability of the NPRM, is an 

incorrect STC number; the correct 

number is SA00224WI–D. We have 

corrected this error, which expands the 

airplanes affected by the original NPRM. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received. 

Request To Change the Description of 

the Unsafe Condition 

Saab AB/Aerosystems asks that we 

change the description of the unsafe 

condition specified in the NPRM. Saab 

states that the NPRM indicates that the 

fuselage skin is classified as ‘‘certain 

safe-life structure.’’ Saab notes that this 

does not meet the definition of the 

airframe/fuselage structure; the fuselage 

skin is damage tolerant structure 

according to Section 25.571 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

25.571). Saab adds that this definition is 

included in the fatigue critical baseline 

structure (FCBS) list. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. We have changed the 

description of the unsafe condition in 

the Summary section and paragraph (e) 

of this AD accordingly. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 51697 

Request To Define Method To Repair 

Discrepancies 

Saab asks that we define the method 

necessary to repair the discrepancies 

specified in the NPRM. Saab states that 

the NPRM does not give any details on 

how to repair those discrepancies. Saab 

adds that the method in the NPRM 

specifies that only approval by the 

Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), will be accepted. 

We disagree with the commenter. The 

discrepancies referred to in this AD are 

corrosion, and cracking of the fuselage 

surface as a result of that corrosion. 

Each airplane may exhibit different 

extremes of both types of corrosion and 

cracking, and each repair must be 

evaluated by the ACO based on the 

extent of the damage. We have not 

changed the AD in this regard. 

Request to Re-Evaluate the STC 

Procedures 

Saab states that it has reservations 

about the STC procedures for 

installation of the TCAS antennae 

because of the possibility of 

compromised long-term effects on the 

airplane. Saab notes that the installation 

procedures include anchor nuts 

installed directly in the skin without 

anchor nut places, acceptance of 

improper edge distances, compromised 

surface protection, and no structural 

reinforcement of the antennae. 

We infer that Saab is requesting reevaluation of the STC procedures; we do 

not agree. The STC was approved by us 

in 1991, and there is not enough data at 

this time to warrant re-evaluation of the 

STC procedures. Corrosion issues are 

more than likely the result of the initial 

installer applying inadequate corrosion 

protection as indicated by the initial 

fleet data. Without additional fleet data 

to confirm otherwise, we cannot concur 

with any design inadequacies. 

Therefore, we have not changed the AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Include Replacement 

Procedure for the Adapter Plate 

Saab asks that a replacement 

procedure for corroded adapter plates be 

included in Chapter 51–70–60 of the 

Saab Structural Repair Manual (SRM). 

Saab states that typical installation of 

the antennae and associated actions is 

outlined in the SRM, and the antennae 

plates are subject to corrosion. Saab 

adds that a replacement procedure for 

the adapter plate should be included in 

the SRM to allow operators to install 

replacement plates according to design 

procedures. 

We acknowledge and agree with the 

commenter’s concern that the STC 

holder should have provided 

appropriate procedures for replacement 

of corroded adapter plates. Once STC 

procedures are developed, approved, 

and available, we might consider 

additional rulemaking. However, we 

consider that any further delay in 

issuing this supplemental NPRM would 

result in an unacceptable level of risk 

because doing so would allow the 

unsafe condition to continue for an 

indefinite length of time. Therefore, we 

have not changed the AD in this regard. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all 

pertinent information and determined 

an unsafe condition exists and is likely 

to exist or develop on other products of 

these same type designs. Certain 

changes described above expand the 

scope of the original 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 supplemental 

NPRM. 

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 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 201 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. The proposed inspection would 

take about 4 work hours per airplane, at 

an average labor rate of $85 per work 

hour. Based on these figures, the 

estimated cost of the proposed AD for 

U.S. operators is $68,340, or $340 per 

airplane. 

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. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance 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: 

Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0042; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–010–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

September 17, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the Saab AB, Saab 

Aerosystems airplanes, certificated in any 

category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this AD, that have been modified in 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
51698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) SA00224WI–D, 

ST00146WI–D, or SA984GL–D. 

(1) Model SAAB 340A (SAAB/SF340A) 

airplanes, serial numbers 004 through 159 

inclusive. 

(2) Model SAAB 340B airplanes, serial 

numbers 160 through 459 inclusive. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from a report of a crack 

found behind the external adapter plate of 

the antennae during inspection. Similar 

cracking was found on two additional 

airplanes, and extensive corrosion was found 

on one airplane. The Federal Aviation 

Administration is issuing this AD to detect 

and correct corrosion and cracking behind 

the external adapter plate of the antennae of 

certain damage-tolerant structure, which 

could result in reduced structural integrity 

and consequent rapid depressurization of the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified. 

Inspection/Corrective Actions 

(g) Within 600 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD: Remove the external 

adapter plate of the antennae installation and 

do a general visual inspection of the fuselage 

surface for corrosion and cracking behind the 

external adapter plate of the antennae 

installation. If any corrosion or cracking is 

found, repair before further flight. If no 

corrosion or cracking is found, before further 

flight, ensure that proper corrosion 

protection has been applied before 

reinstalling the adapter plate. Do all the 

actions required by this paragraph in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual 

examination of an interior or exterior area, 

installation, or assembly to detect obvious 

damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of 

inspection is made from within touching 

distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror 

may be necessary to ensure visual access to 

all surfaces in the inspection area. This level 

of inspection is made under normally 

available lighting conditions such as 

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or 

droplight and may require removal or 

opening of access panels or doors. Stands, 

ladders, or platforms may be required to gain 

proximity to the area being checked.’’ 

Reporting Requirement 

(h) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD: Submit 

a report of the positive findings of the 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD. Send the report to the Manager, Wichita 

ACO. The report must contain, at a 

minimum, the inspection results, a 

description of any discrepancies found, the 

airplane serial number, and the number of 

flight cycles and flight hours on the airplane 

since installation of the STC. 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 contained in this AD and has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

(1) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

Special Flight Permit 

(i) Special flight permits, as described in 

Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 

and 21.199), may be issued to operate the 

airplane to a location where the requirements 

of this AD can be accomplished, but 

concurrence by the Manager, Wichita ACO, 

FAA, is required prior to issuance of the 

special flight permit. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, 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: 

William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA, Wichita 

ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; 

telephone (316) 946–4116; fax (316) 946– 

4107. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington on August 

16, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20852 Filed 8–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0803; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–124–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A310 Series Airplanes; and Model 

A300 B4–600, A300 B4–600R, A300 F4– 

600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 

C4–605R Variant F Airplanes 

(Collectively Called A300–600 Series 

Airplanes) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: The ball screw nut 

assemblies of the first 70 Trimmable 

Horizontal Stabilizer Actuators (THSA) 

manufactured by Goodrich were fitted 

with an upper attachment gimbal having 

a thickness of 58 mm (2.28 in), which 

is different from the design of the final 

production standard. The gimbal 

installed on the subsequent THSAs 

(final production standard) is more 

robust, having a thickness of 70mm 

(2.76 in). During the fatigue life 

demonstration of the THSA upper 

attachment primary load path elements, 

only a gimbal having a thickness of 

70mm (2.76 in) was used. Thereafter, no 

additional justification work to 

demonstrate the robustness of the upper 

attachment fitted with a gimbal of 58 

mm was accomplished. In case of failure 

of this gimbal, the THSA upper 

attachment primary load path would be 

lost and the THSA upper attachment 

secondary load path would engage. 

Because the upper attachment 

secondary load path will only withstand 

the loads for a limited period of time, 

the condition where it would be 

engaged and not detected could lead to 

failure of the secondary load path, 

which would likely result in loss of 

control of the aeroplane. 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 7, 2010. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS