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

34509 

Vol. 74, No. 135 

Thursday, July 16, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0615; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–043–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A310–203, –221, –222 Airplanes and 

Model A300 F4–605R and –622R 

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: 

An A300–600 operator reported two events 

of IPECO pilot seat moved in the aft position, 

one during take-off roll and one during climb 

out. The investigation of these events showed 

that a broken/missing spring contributed to 

the seat not being correctly locked. 

An unwanted movement of pilot or copilot seat in the aft direction is considered as 

potentially dangerous, especially during the 

take-off phase when the speed of the 

aeroplane is greater than 100 knots and until 

landing gear retraction. 

* * * * * 

The unsafe condition is potential loss of 

control of the airplane during take-off 

and landing. 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 August 17, 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 SAS– 

EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail: 

account.airworth-eas@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: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2125; 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–2009–0615; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–043–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 2009–0045, 

dated February 27, 2009 (referred to 

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

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

An A300–600 operator reported two events 

of IPECO pilot seat moved in the aft position, 

one during take-off roll and one during climb 

out. The investigation of these events showed 

that a broken/missing spring contributed to 

the seat not being correctly locked. 

An unwanted movement of pilot or copilot seat in the aft direction is considered as 

potentially dangerous, especially during the 

take-off phase when the speed of the 

aeroplane is greater than 100 knots and until 

landing gear retraction. 

To prevent further incidents of inadvertent 

flight crew seat aft movement, this AD 

requires repetitive inspections of the affected 

seat springs and replacement of missing or 

broken parts. In addition, this AD requires 

replacement of the affected seats with 

modified P/N 3A218–000X–01–2 seats. 

Installation of both pilot and co-pilot seats 

P/N 3A218–000X–01–2 on an aeroplane 

constitutes terminating action for the 

repetitive inspection requirements of this AD 

for that aeroplane. 

The unsafe condition is potential loss of 

control of the airplane during take-off 

and landing. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Mandatory Service 

Bulletins A300–25A6210 and A310– 

25A2199, both dated July 9, 2008; and 

A300–25–6214 and A310–25–2202, both 

dated February 3, 2009. Airbus has also 

issued A300–600 Operations 

Engineering Bulletin 121/1, dated May 

2008; and A300 Operations Engineering 

Bulletin 160/2, dated October 2008. The 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34510 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 132 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 11 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $80 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $1,214 per 

product. Where the service information 

lists required parts costs that are 

covered under warranty, we have 

assumed that there will be no charge for 

these costs. As we do not control 

warranty coverage for affected parties, 

some parties may incur costs higher 

than estimated here. Based on these 

figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$276,408, or $2,094 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 

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–2009–0615; 

Directorate Identifier 2009–NM–043–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by August 

17, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the airplanes 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 

the AD, certificated in any category, having 

IPECO part number (P/N) 3A218–000X–01–1 

pilot or co-pilot mechanical seats installed. 

(1) Airbus Model A310–203, A310–221, 

and A310–222 airplanes, all serial numbers. 

(2) Airbus Model A300 F4–605R and A300 

F4–622R airplanes, all serial numbers. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

‘‘An A300–600 operator reported two 

events of IPECO pilot seat moved in the aft 

position, one during take-off roll and one 

during climb out. The investigation of these 

events showed that a broken/missing spring 

contributed to the seat not being correctly 

locked. 

‘‘An unwanted movement of pilot or copilot seat in the aft direction is considered as 

potentially dangerous, especially during the 

take-off phase when the speed of the 

aeroplane is greater than 100 knots and until 

landing gear retraction. 

‘‘To prevent further incidents of 

inadvertent flight crew seat aft movement, 

this AD requires repetitive inspections of the 

affected seat springs and replacement of 

missing or broken parts. In addition, this AD 

requires replacement of the affected seats 

with modified P/N 3A218–000X–01–2 seats. 

Installation of both pilot and co-pilot seats 

P/N 3A218–000X–01–2 on an aeroplane 

constitutes terminating action for the 

repetitive inspection requirements of this AD 

for that aeroplane.’’ 

The unsafe condition is potential loss of 

control of the airplane during take-off and 

landing. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) Within 90 days after the effective date 

of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 30 days, do a detailed visual 

inspection of the two springs of the pilot seat 

and co-pilot seat locking device, in 

accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A310–25A2199 or A300–25A6210, 

both dated July 9, 2008, as applicable. 

(i) If only one spring is missing or found 

damaged during any inspection required by 

paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 10 days 

after the inspection or before further flight, 

whichever occurs later, replace the spring 

with a serviceable part, in accordance with 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310– 

25A2199 or A300–25A6210, both dated July 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34511 

9, 2008, as applicable. Before an airplane 

may be dispatched with one spring missing 

or damaged, the instructions contained in 

Airbus A310 Operations Engineering Bulletin 

160/2, dated October 2008; or A300–600 

Operations Engineering Bulletin 121/1, dated 

May 2008; as applicable; must be 

accomplished by the flightcrew. 

(ii) If two springs are missing or found 

damaged during any inspection required by 

paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further 

flight, replace the springs in accordance with 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310– 

25A2199 or A300–25A6210, both dated July 

9, 2008, as applicable. 

(2) Replacing parts in accordance with 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310– 

25A2199 or A300–25A6210, both dated July 

9, 2008, as applicable, is not a terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections required 

in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. 

(3) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install an IPECO pilot or co-pilot 

mechanical seat P/N 3A218–000X–01–1 on 

any airplane, unless the seat has been 

inspected and modified, as applicable in 

accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A310–25A2199 or A300–25A6210, 

both dated July 9, 2008, as applicable. 

(4) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, modify the airplane by replacing 

the pilot and co-pilot mechanical seats P/N 

3A218–000X–01–1 with P/N 3A218–000X– 

01–2 seats, in accordance with Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–25–2202 

or A300–25–6214, both dated February 3, 

2009, as applicable. 

(5) Installing both pilot and co-pilot seats 

P/N 3A218–000X–01–2 in accordance with 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–25– 

2202 or A300–25–6214, both dated February 

3, 2009, as applicable, on any airplane is a 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of 

this AD for that airplane. 

(6) As of 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, do not install an IPECO pilot or 

co-pilot mechanical seat P/N 3A218–000X– 

01–1 on any airplane. 

(7) Although Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletins A310–25A2199 and A300– 

25A6210, both dated July 9, 2008, specify to 

submit certain information to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: 

Although the MCAI and service information 

request to submit reporting information to 

Airbus, paragraph (f)(7) of this AD specifies 

that such submittal is not required. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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: Dan Rodina, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–2125; 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 letter. 

(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 FAAapproved 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. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2009– 

0045, dated February 27, 2009, and the 

service information listed in Table 1 of this 

AD for related information. 

TABLE 1—SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus service information Date 

A300–600 Operations Engineering Bulletin 121/1 ........................................................................................................... May 2008. 

A310 Operations Engineering Bulletin 160/2 ................................................................................................................... October 2008. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–25–6214 ..................................................................................................................... February 3, 2009. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–25A6210 ..................................................................................................................... July 9, 2008. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–25–2202 ..................................................................................................................... February 3, 2009. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–25A2199 ..................................................................................................................... July 9, 2008. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 6, 

2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–16939 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0616; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–070–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; 328 Support 

Services GmbH Dornier Model 328–100 

and –300 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: 

A recent incident has been reported with 

a Dornier 328–100 aeroplane, where the 

right-hand (RH) power lever jammed in 

flight-idle position during the landing rollout. The aeroplane was stopped by excessive 

braking. 

The investigation by the operator revealed 

that the cockpit door locking device * * * 

had fallen off the RH cockpit wall and 

blocked the RH power/condition lever 

pulley/cable cluster below the door. * * * 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

cause interference with the engine- and/or 

flight control cables, possibly resulting in 

reduced 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 August 17, 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1