1646 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

which are the multipliers used to 

determine the manufacturer selling 

prices based on manufacturing cost. 

Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD 

discusses the engineering analysis. 

2. Energy Use Characterization 

The energy use characterization 

provides estimates of annual energy 

consumption for the three heating 

products, which DOE uses in the LCC 

and PBP analyses and the NIA. DOE 

developed energy consumption 

estimates for all of the product classes 

analyzed in the engineering analysis as 

the basis for its energy use estimates. 

Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD 

discusses the energy use 

characterization. 

3. Markups To Determine Product Prices 

DOE derives consumer prices for 

products based on manufacturer 

markups, retailer markups, distributor 

markups, contractor markups, builder 

markups, and sales taxes. In deriving 

these markups, DOE has determined (1) 

The distribution channels for product 

sales; (2) the markup associated with 

each party in the distribution channels; 

and (3) the existence and magnitude of 

differences between markups for 

baseline products (baseline markups) 

and for more-efficient products 

(incremental markups). DOE calculates 

both overall baseline and overall 

incremental markups based on the 

product markups at each step in the 

distribution channel. The overall 

incremental markup relates the change 

in the manufacturer sales price of 

higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase) to the change 

in the retailer or distributor sales price. 

Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD 

discusses the estimation of markups. 

4. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

The LCC and PBP analyses determine 

the economic impact of potential 

standards on individual consumers. The 

LCC is the total consumer expense for 

a product over the life of the product. 

The LCC analysis compares the LCCs of 

products designed to meet possible 

energy conservation standards with the 

LCCs of the products likely to be 

installed in the absence of standards. 

DOE determines LCCs by considering 

(1) Total installed cost to the purchaser 

(which consists of manufacturer selling 

price, sales taxes, distribution chain 

markups, and installation cost); (2) the 

operating expenses of the products 

(energy use and maintenance); (3) 

product lifetime; and (4) a discount rate 

that reflects the real consumer cost of 

capital and puts the LCC in presentvalue terms. The PBP represents the 

number of years needed to recover the 

increase in purchase price (including 

installation cost) of more efficient 

products through savings in the 

operating cost of the product. It is the 

change in total installed cost due to 

increased efficiency divided by the 

change in annual operating cost from 

increased efficiency. Chapter 8 of the 

preliminary TSD discusses the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

5. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA estimates the national energy 

savings (NES) and the net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings expected to result from new 

standards at specific efficiency levels 

(referred to as candidate standard 

levels). Examining the three heating 

products, DOE calculated NES and NPV 

for each efficiency level as the 

difference between a base-case forecast 

(without new standards) and the 

standards case forecast (with standards). 

DOE determined national annual energy 

consumption by multiplying the 

number of units in use (by vintage, 

which is expressed in years) by the 

average unit energy consumption (also 

by vintage). Cumulative energy savings 

are the sum of the annual NES 

determined over a specified time period. 

The national NPV is the sum over time 

of the discounted net savings each year, 

which consists of the difference 

between total operating cost savings and 

increases in total installed costs. Critical 

inputs to this analysis include 

shipments projections, retirement rates 

(based on estimated product lifetimes), 

and estimates of changes in shipments 

and retirement rates in response to 

changes in product costs due to 

standards. Chapter 10 of the preliminary 

TSD discusses the NIA. 

DOE consulted with stakeholders and 

other interested persons as part of its 

process for conducting all of the 

analyses and invites further input from 

the public on these topics. The 

preliminary analytical results are 

subject to revision following review and 

input from the public. A complete and 

revised TSD will be made available 

upon issuance of a NOPR. The final rule 

will contain the final analysis results 

and be accompanied by a final rule TSD. 

DOE encourages those who wish to 

participate in the public meeting to 

obtain the preliminary TSD and to be 

prepared to discuss its contents. A copy 

of the preliminary TSD is available at 

the Web address given in the SUMMARY

section of this notice. However, public 

meeting participants need not limit their 

comments to the topics identified in the 

preliminary TSD. DOE is also interested 

in receiving views concerning other 

relevant issues that participants believe 

would affect energy conservation 

standards for these products or that DOE 

should address in the NOPR. 

Furthermore, DOE welcomes all 

interested parties, whether or not they 

participate in the public meeting, to 

submit in writing by March 16, 2009, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in the preliminary TSD and 

on other matters relevant to 

consideration of standards for 

residential water heaters, direct heating 

equipment, and pool heaters. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. A court 

reporter will be present to record the 

minutes of the meeting. There shall be 

no discussion of proprietary 

information, costs or prices, market 

shares, or other commercial matters 

regulated by United States antitrust 

laws. 

After the public meeting and the 

expiration of the period for submitting 

written statements, DOE will consider 

all comments and additional 

information that is obtained from 

interested parties or through further 

analyses, and it will prepare a NOPR. 

The NOPR will include proposed energy 

conservation standards for the products 

covered by this rulemaking, and 

members of the public will be given an 

opportunity to submit written and oral 

comments on the proposed standards. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 

2009. 

John F. Mizroch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. E9–476 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0004; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–160–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A318, A319, A320, and A321 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1647 

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: 

One case of elevator servo-control 

disconnection has been experienced on an 

aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred 

at the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to 

this finding, additional inspections have 

revealed cracking at the same location on a 

number of other servo-control rod eye-ends. 

In one case, both actuators of the same 

elevator surface were affected. * * * 

A dual servo-control disconnection on the 

same elevator could result in an uncontrolled 

surface, the elevator surface being neither 

actuated nor damped, which could lead to 

reduced control of the aircraft. 

* * * * * 

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 February 12, 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, 

Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; 

e-mail: account.airwortheas@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: Tim 

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2141; 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–2009–0004; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–160–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 2008–0149, 

dated August 5, 2008 (referred to after 

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

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

One case of elevator servo-control 

disconnection has been experienced on an 

aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred 

at the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to 

this finding, additional inspections have 

revealed cracking at the same location on a 

number of other servo-control rod eye-ends. 

In one case, both actuators of the same 

elevator surface were affected. The root cause 

of the cracking has not yet been determined 

and tests are ongoing. It is anticipated that 

further actions will be required. 

A dual servo-control disconnection on the 

same elevator could result in an uncontrolled 

surface, the elevator surface being neither 

actuated nor damped, which could lead to 

reduced control of the aircraft. 

For the reason described above, this AD 

requires a one-time inspection [for cracking] 

of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends 

and, in case of findings, the accomplishment 

of corrective actions. 

The corrective actions include replacing 

any cracked rod eye end with a 

serviceable unit and re-adjusting the 

elevator servo-control. You may obtain 

further information by examining the 

MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued All Operators Telex 

A320–27A1186, dated June 23, 2008. 

The actions described in this service 

information are intended to correct the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

MCAI. 

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. 

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 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 730 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 13 work-hours 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 

$759,200, or $1,040 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, 

1648 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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–2009–0004; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–160–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by February 

12, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318– 

111, –112, –121, and –122; A319–111, –112, 

–113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133; 

A320–111, –211, –212, –214, –231, –232, 

–233; and A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, 

–213, –231, and –232 series airplanes; 

certificated in any category; 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: 

One case of elevator servo-control 

disconnection has been experienced on an 

aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred 

at the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to 

this finding, additional inspections have 

revealed cracking at the same location on a 

number of other servo-control rod eye-ends. 

In one case, both actuators of the same 

elevator surface were affected. The root cause 

of the cracking has not yet been determined 

and tests are ongoing. It is anticipated that 

further actions will be required. 

A dual servo-control disconnection on the 

same elevator could result in an uncontrolled 

surface, the elevator surface being neither 

actuated nor damped, which could lead to 

reduced control of the aircraft. 

For the reason described above, this AD 

requires a one-time inspection [for cracking] 

of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends 

and, in case of findings, the accomplishment 

of corrective actions. 

The corrective actions include replacing any 

cracked rod eye-end with a serviceable unit 

and re-adjusting the elevator servo-control. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done after the 

accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles 

since first flight of the airplane, do the 

following actions. 

(1) Not before the accumulation of 10,000 

total flight cycles since first flight of the 

airplane, and at the later of the times 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) 

of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and 

right-hand inboard elevator servo-control rod 

eye-ends for cracking in accordance with the 

instructions of Airbus All Operators Telex 

(AOT) A320–27A1186, dated June 23, 2008. 

(i) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

(ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days 

after accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles 

since first flight of the airplane, whichever 

occurs first. 

(2) Not before the accumulation of 10,000 

total flight cycles since first flight of the 

airplane, and at the later of the times 

specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) 

of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and 

right-hand outboard elevator servo-control 

rod eye-ends for cracking, in accordance with 

the instructions of Airbus AOT A320– 

27A1186, dated June 23, 2008. 

(i) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

(ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days 

after accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles 

since first flight of the airplane, whichever 

occurs first. 

(3) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by this AD, before further 

flight, accomplish all applicable corrective 

actions in accordance with the instructions of 

Airbus AOT A320–27A1186, dated June 23, 

2008. 

(4) Submit a report of the findings of the 

inspection required by paragraphs (f)(1) and 

(f)(2) of this AD to Airbus in accordance with 

the instructions of Airbus AOT A320– 

27A1186, dated June 23, 2008, at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph 

(f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii) of 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 contained in this AD and has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

(i) If the inspection was done after the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 40 days after the inspection. 

(ii) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 40 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(5) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install on any airplane an 

elevator servo-control rod eye-end unless it 

has been inspected in accordance with the 

instructions of Airbus AOT A320–27A1186, 

dated June 23, 2008. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: 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, International 

Branch, 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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace 

Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2141; fax 

(425) 227–1149. Before using any approved 

AMOC on any airplane 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1649 

(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– 

0149, dated August 5, 2008, and Airbus AOT 

A320–27A1186, dated June 23, 2008, for 

related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 29, 2008. 

Linda Navarro, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–456 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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), 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: 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 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 February 12, 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. 

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: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

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 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2008–0026, 

dated February 12, 2008 (referred to 

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

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The 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 corrective actions include replacing 

damaged parts before next flight. You 

may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins 

A330–27–3151, A330–27–3152, A340– 

27–4151, A340–27–4152, and A340–27– 

5040; all dated August 9, 2007. The 

actions described in this service 

information are intended to correct the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

MCAI. 

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. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in