5070 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

FR 34094, June 27, 2001), are approved as 

AMOCs for the inspection requirements of 

this AD only at fastener locations where the 

AMOC provided for installing either 

BACB30NX or BACB30US fasteners.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

21, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1794 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–120–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–120 Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document revises an 

earlier proposed airworthiness directive 

(AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER 

Model EMB–120 series airplanes that 

would have required initial and 

repetitive calibration testing of 

potentiometers to detect noisy signals 

and replacement of only those with 

noisy signals. This new action revises 

the proposed AD by reducing the 

compliance time for the repetitive 

calibration testing of the potentiometers 

and adding the requirement for 

reporting results of the calibration tests 

of the potentiometers and the readouts 

of the flight data recorder (FDR) to the 

airplane manufacturer. The actions 

specified by this new proposed AD are 

intended to prevent the potentiometers 

that provide information on the 

positions of the primary flight controls 

to the FDR from transmitting noisy 

signals or becoming improperly 

calibrated, resulting in the transmission 

of incomplete or inaccurate data to the 

FDR. This lack of reliable data could 

hamper discovery of the unsafe 

condition that caused an accident or 

incident and prevent the FAA from 

developing and mandating actions to 

prevent additional accidents or 

incidents caused by that same unsafe 

condition. This action is intended to 

address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 28, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

120–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. Comments may be submitted 

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments 

may also be sent via the Internet using 

the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent 

via fax or the Internet must contain 

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–120–AD’’ in the 

subject line and need not be submitted 

in triplicate. Comments sent via the 

Internet as attached electronic files must 

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 

2000 or ASCII text. 

The service information referenced in 

the proposed rule may be obtained from 

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343–CEP 12.225, 

Sao Jose dos Campos–SP, Brazil. This 

information may be examined at the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules 

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, S.W., Renton, 

Washington, 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 227–1175; 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 action may be changed in light 

of the comments received. 

Submit comments using the following 

format: 

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. 

For example, discuss a request to 

change the compliance time and a 

request to change the service bulletin 

reference as two separate issues. 

• For each issue, state what specific 

change to the proposed AD is being 

requested. 

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or 

data) for each request. 

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 action 

must submit a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Number 2000–NM–120–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. 

2000–NM–120–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion 

A proposal to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) to add an airworthiness 

directive (AD), applicable to certain 

EMBRAER Model EMB–120 series 

airplanes, was published as a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on March 19, 2003 (68 FR 

13239), hereafter referred to as the ‘‘first 

supplemental NPRM.’’ That 

supplemental NPRM would have 

required initial and repetitive 

calibration testing of the potentiometers 

to detect noisy signals and replacement 

of only those with noisy signals. 

Potentiometers that provide information 

on the positions of the primary flight 

controls to the flight data recorder (FDR) 

transmitting noisy signals or becoming 

improperly calibrated, if not corrected, 

could result in the transmission of 

incomplete or inaccurate data to the 

FDR. This lack of reliable data could 

hamper discovery of the unsafe 

condition that caused an accident or 

incident and prevent the FAA from 

developing and mandating actions to 

prevent additional accidents or 

incidents caused by that same unsafe 

condition. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5071

Comments Received to the First 

Supplemental NPRM 

Due consideration has been given to 

the comments received in response to 

the first supplemental NPRM. 

Request To Reduce Compliance Time 

The commenter, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

requests that the compliance time 

interval for the repetitive calibration 

tests of the potentiometers and the 

readouts of the FDR in the first 

supplemental NPRM be changed from 

12 months back to the 6 months 

proposed in the original NPRM. The 

commenter states that it closed Safety 

Recommendation A–96–34 in 1998 with 

an acceptable status, because the 

original NPRM and the FAA Flight 

Standards Handbook Bulletin for 

Airworthiness 97–14 (EMBRAER EMB–

120 Flight Data Recorder Test), directed 

potentiometer calibration testing every 6 

months. Since the original NPRM was 

issued, the commenter points out that 

the FAA reversed its position on these 

inspections by proposing to require 

annual inspections in the first 

supplemental NPRM. The commenter 

states it has found sensor failures to be 

intermittent and believes that, because 

annual inspections are the typical 

inspection cycle for FDR systems, they 

may not reveal a problem and will not 

provide timely feedback on the 

effectiveness of the corrective action, 

possibly resulting in a failed sensor 

remaining in place for a full year. 

The FAA agrees. Sensor failures can 

be intermittent; therefore, we have 

determined that annual inspections—

the typical inspection cycle for FDR 

systems—may not reveal a problem in a 

timely manner and could possibly result 

in a failed sensor remaining in place for 

up to a year. We have revised paragraph 

(b) of this second supplemental NPRM 

to reduce the compliance time interval 

for the repetitive calibration tests of the 

potentiometers and the readouts of the 

FDR from 12 months back to 6 months. 

Request To Include Reporting 

Requirement 

The same commenter states that, if the 

AD is revised as proposed in the first 

supplemental NPRM, the only way to 

properly evaluate the effectiveness of 

the proposed corrective action is to 

require an FDR readout and evaluation 

every 6 months for 2 years, and to 

submit the results to the FAA for 

evaluation (as prescribed in the original 

NPRM). The commenter further asserts 

that removal of the reporting 

requirement will eliminate the 

opportunity for a fleet wide evaluation 

of the continuing problem. 

From these statements, we infer that 

the commenter is requesting that we 

revise the first supplemental NPRM to 

again require operators to report results 

of their calibration tests of the 

potentiometers and the readouts of the 

FDR to us every 6 months for 2 years. 

We partially agree with the commenter’s 

request. As we explained previously, we 

have reduced the compliance time for 

the repetitive interval for the calibration 

tests of the potentiometers and the 

readouts of the FDR from 12 months to 

6 months. We also agree that the 

calibration testing and readout results 

will be valuable for determining 

whether the proposed corrective actions 

adequately address the noisy signals, 

loose couplers, and incorrect 

calibrations that are found, and for 

determining the extent of these in the 

affected fleet. Based on the results of 

these reports, we may determine that 

further corrective action is warranted. 

Therefore, we have revised this second 

supplemental NPRM to add new a 

paragraph (f) that would require 

operators to report results of the initial 

and repetitive calibration tests of the 

potentiometers and the readouts of the 

FDR at intervals not to exceed 6 months 

for 24 months, and reidentified 

subsequent paragraphs accordingly. 

However, we do not agree that these 

results should be submitted to the FAA. 

The airplane manufacturer, EMBRAER, 

continually monitors the effectiveness 

of corrective actions and reviews both 

the corrective actions and their 

effectiveness with the Centro Technico 

Aeroespacial (CTA), which is a division 

of the airworthiness authority for Brazil, 

during quarterly service difficulty 

reviews. Therefore, we have determined 

that the calibration testing and readouts 

of the FDR should be reported directly 

to EMBRAER. We will work closely 

with EMBRAER and the CTA to monitor 

the effectiveness of the corrective 

actions specified in this second 

supplemental NPRM and will determine 

if further corrective action is warranted 

based on the results of these reports. No 

additional change to the second 

supplemental NPRM is necessary in this 

regard.

Request To Revise the Method of 

Compliance 

The same commenter requests that the 

first supplemental NPRM be revised to 

include requirements to conduct the 

FDR readout and evaluation just before 

the airplane’s scheduled maintenance, 

with emphasis on observing parameter 

performance during in-flight and ground 

operations. The commenter further 

suggests that the most direct way to 

detect a sensor failure or out-ofcalibration condition would be for a 

qualified analyst to periodically 

evaluate the FDR data, conduct a 

calibration check, and make any 

necessary sensor replacements during 

scheduled maintenance. The commenter 

asserts that the fact that one or more 

flight control parameters failed in 16 of 

17 Model EMB–120 FDR readouts since 

1990 suggests that the problem may be 

systemic and may require a more robust 

sensor and/or installation. Further, the 

commenter expresses doubt that all of 

the failures were caused by storing the 

sensors for more than 12 months, which 

the airplane and sensor manufacturers 

claim caused an oxide film to form on 

the sensor, resulting in the noisy 

signals. The commenter supplied no 

data to support this request. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to revise the compliance 

method. However, as we explained 

previously, we have reduced the 

compliance time for the repetitive 

interval for calibration testing of the 

potentiometers and readout of the FDR. 

We find that installation problems with 

the sensor’s compatibility with the 

installation environment would more 

likely appear as (hard) sensor failures, 

not signal quality problems. The 

commenter itself points out that noisy 

signals are rare and most service 

problems are related to poor 

maintenance or an improperly executed 

FD replacement. Therefore, because the 

potentiometers are sealed and require 

no maintenance, we still consider oxide 

coating inside the potentiometers a 

contributing factor to the source of the 

noisy signals—most likely a result of 

prolonged disuse of the sensors. 

Therefore, we find that these proposed 

corrective actions will purge any faulty 

sensors and that no change to the 

second supplemental NPRM is 

necessary in this regard. 

Clarification of Certain Terms 

We have added a new Note 1 to this 

second supplemental NPRM (and renumbered subsequent notes 

accordingly) to clarify our use of the 

word ‘‘calibration.’’ For the purposes of 

this second supplemental NPRM, we 

define calibration as the adjustment of 

the potentiometers, including 

operational and functional tests of the 

FDR system, as specified in Section 31–

30–00 of the EMBRAER EMB120 

Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM). 

Paragraph (a) of this second 

supplemental NPRM provides 

procedures for a noise ‘‘check’’ to detect 

potentiometers with noisy signals. We 

have determined that certified 

5072 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

maintenance personnel must perform 

the noise check. 

Explanation of Additional Changes to 

the Second Supplemental NPRM 

We have added a new paragraph (e) 

to this second supplemental NPRM (and 

reidentified subsequent paragraphs 

accordingly) to state that modification of 

the flexible couplings done before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance 

with Change 01 of EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 120–31–0038, dated October 3, 

1997, is considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

action required by paragraph (d) of this 

second supplemental NPRM. 

We have also changed paragraphs (a) 

and (c) of this second supplemental 

NPRM to specify that the proposed 

actions shall be done in accordance 

with a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA. In addition, the following sections 

of the EMBRAER EMB–120 AMM are 

identified as approved methods of 

compliance for accomplishing the 

proposed actions specified in the 

applicable paragraphs: 

• Paragraph (a): Section 31–30–00, 

dated April 10, 2002. 

• Paragraph (c): Section 31–30–05, 

dated July 17, 1998. 

Additionally, we have added a new 

Note 2 to this second supplemental 

NPRM (and re-numbered subsequent 

notes accordingly) to clarify that Section 

31–30–05 of the EMBRAER EMB120 

AMM includes instructions for 

calibrating the potentiometers (adjusting 

the potentiometers, including 

operational and functional tests of the 

FDR system). The procedures for that 

calibration are specified in Section 31–

30–00 of the EMBRAER EMB120 AMM. 

Conclusion 

Since some of these changes expand 

the scope of the first supplemental 

NPRM, the FAA has determined that it 

is necessary to reopen the comment 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for public comment. 

Changes to 14 CFR part 39/Effect on the 

Proposed AD 

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a 

new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 

47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the 

FAA’s airworthiness directives system. 

The regulation now includes material 

that relates to altered products, special 

flight permits, and alternative methods 

of compliance (AMOC). Because we 

have now included this material in part 

39, only the office authorized to approve 

AMOCs is identified in each individual 

AD. Therefore, paragraph (g) has been 

revised and paragraph (h) and Notes 1 

and 4 of the first supplemental NPRM 

have been removed from this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Increase in Labor Rate 

After the first supplemental NPRM 

was issued, we reviewed the figures we 

use to calculate the labor rate to do the 

required actions. To account for various 

inflationary costs in the airline industry, 

we find it appropriate to increase the 

labor rate used in these calculations 

from $60 per work hour to $65 per work 

hour. The economic impact information, 

below, has been revised to reflect this 

increase in the specified hourly labor 

rate. 

Cost Impact 

The FAA estimates that 587 airplanes 

of U.S. registry would be affected by this 

proposed AD. The following table 

provides the estimated costs for U.S. 

operators to comply with this proposed 

AD.

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Cost of parts per airplane Cost per airplane 

Calibration and FDR readout, 

per calibration cycle (3 potentiometers per airplane).

1 per potentiometer (for digitaltype FDRs), per calibration 

cycle; or 25 per potentiometer (for tape-type FDRs), 

per calibration cycle.

$65 Negligible ................................. $65, potentiometer (for digitalcalibration type FDRs), per 

calibration cycle; or $1,625, 

per potentiometer (for tapetype FDRs), per calibration 

cycle. 

Application of adhesive ............. 1 ............................................... 65 Negligible ................................. $65. 

The cost impact figures discussed 

above are 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. The cost 

impact figures discussed in AD 

rulemaking actions represent only the 

time necessary to perform the specific 

actions actually required by the AD. 

These figures typically do not include 

incidental costs, such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

planning time, or time necessitated by 

other administrative actions. 

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 have 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 that the 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5073

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation.

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:

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER): Docket 2000–NM–120–AD.

Applicability: Model EMB–120 series 

airplanes), certificated in any category, that 

are required by 14 CFR 135 to operate with 

a flight data recorder (FDR). 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent the potentiometers that provide 

information on the positions of the primary 

flight controls to the FDR from transmitting 

noisy signals or becoming improperly 

calibrated, resulting in the transmission of 

incomplete or inaccurate data to the FDR, 

accomplish the following: 

Initial Potentiometer Calibration Testing and 

FDR Readout 

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Calibrate the potentiometers to 

the ailerons, elevators, and rudder; perform 

a noise check of the potentiometers; and 

obtain a readout of the FDR; in accordance 

with a method approved by the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA. Section 31–30–

00, dated April 10, 2002, of the EMBRAER 

EMB–120 Airplane Maintenance Manual 

(AMM) is one approved method. The noise 

check must be performed by certificated 

maintenance personnel.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, 

calibration is defined as the adjustment of the 

potentiometers, including operational and 

functional tests of the FDR system, as 

specified in Section 31–30–00 of the 

EMBRAER EMB120 AMM.

Repetitive Potentiometer Calibration Testing 

and FDR Readout 

(b) Repeat the calibration and noise check 

of the potentiometers and obtain a readout of 

the FDR, as required by paragraph (a) of this 

AD, at intervals not to exceed 6 months. 

Replacement of Potentiometers 

(c) If any readout of the FDR, conducted in 

accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

AD, indicates a potentiometer with a noisy 

signal: Within 20 days after obtaining the 

readout, replace the potentiometer with one 

that has a date of manufacture no greater than 

12 months from the date of installation, in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Section 

31–30–05, dated July 17, 1998, of the 

EMBRAER EMB–120 AMM is one approved 

method.

Note 2: Section 31–30–05 of the EMBRAER 

EMB120 AMM includes instructions for 

calibrating the potentiometers. The 

procedures for the calibration are specified in 

Section 31–30–00 of the EMB120 AMM.

Modification of Flexible Couplers 

(d) Prior to further flight, after 

accomplishing paragraph (a) of this AD: 

Apply locktite adhesive over the threads of 

the screws of the flexible couplers that attach 

the shafts of the potentiometers to the shafts 

of the primary flight controls, in accordance 

with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120–31–

0038, dated February 22, 1997; or Change 02, 

dated June 25, 1998. 

Modification Accomplished Per Previous 

Issue of Service Bulletin 

(e) Modification of the flexible couplers 

done before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

120–31–0038, Change 01, dated October 3, 

1997, is considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding action 

specified in paragraph (d) of this AD. 

Reporting Requirement 

(f) At the applicable time specified in 

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

a report of the calibration tests of the 

potentiometers and the readouts of the FDR 

to Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER), Certification—Continued 

Airworthiness, Av. Brig. Faria Lima, 2170, 

P.C. 179, 12227–901, Sao Jose dos Campos—

SP, Brazil; fax (12) 3927–1184. 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 calibration tests, noise checks, and 

FDR readouts done after the effective date of 

this AD: Submit the report within 30 days 

after performing each test, check, and readout 

required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD. 

(2) For calibration tests, noise checks, and 

FDR readouts done before to the effective 

date of this AD: Submit the report within 10 

days after the effective date of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(g) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is 

authorized to approve alternative methods of 

compliance for this AD.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in Brazilian airworthiness directive 97–08–

01, dated August 29, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

21, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1795 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20221; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–173–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330, A340–200, and A340–300 Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus Model A330, A340–200, and 

A340–300 series airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require inspecting 

to determine the part number and serial 

number of the left- and right-hand 

elevator assemblies, performing related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary, and re-protecting the elevator 

assembly. This proposed AD is 

prompted by reports that areas on the 

top skin panel of the right-hand elevator 

have disbonded due to moisture 

penetration. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent disbonding of the elevator 

assembly, which could reduce the 

structural integrity of the elevator and 

result in reduced controllability of the 

airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW, Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.