Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/10/24/E7-20820/airworthiness-directives-airbus-model-a300-series-airplanes
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 03:37:48
Document Index: 754798887

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 39', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 51']

60240-60243 (4 pages)
Amendment 39-15239
AD 2007-22-03
Request To Clarify the Initial Compliance Time
Requests To Clarify the Requirements of Paragraph (h)
Request To Cite Airbus ALS Part 5
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-20820 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-20820
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference Start Printed Page 60241of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 28, 2007.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Airbus A300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19823). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.
After we issued the NPRM, Airbus published the A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on July 6, 2007) (hereafter referred to as “Document 95A.1928/05”). In the NPRM, we referred to Issue 1 of Document 95A.1928/05, dated December 19, 2005, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions proposed in the NPRM. The fuel airworthiness limitations (FALs) specified in Issue 2 of Document 95A.1928/05 are the same as those in Issue 1 of Document 95A.1928/05. Airbus has revised certain task titles in Section 1 of Issue 2 of Document 95A.1928/05 and has clarified the applicability and corrected certain airplane maintenance manual (AMM) references in Section 2 of the document. Therefore, we have revised this AD by referring to Issue 2 of Document 95A.1928/05 as the appropriate source of service information.
After we issued the NPRM, EASA issued airworthiness directive 2007-0094 R1 dated May 2, 2007, to correct certain compliance times; our NPRM included the correct compliance times, which we explained as differences between the NPRM and EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0200, dated July 11, 2006. The compliance times in this AD already correspond with the compliance times of EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0094 R1. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to refer to EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0094 R1.
After we issued the NPRM, Airbus published Operator Information Telex (OIT) SE 999.0079/07, Revision 01, dated August 14, 2007, to identify the applicable sections of the Airbus A300 AMM necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05. We have added a note to paragraph (f) of this AD to refer to that OIT.
TradeWinds Airlines requests that we revise paragraph (f) of the NPRM to clarify that the “INTERVAL” values specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05 are also the initial threshold values. The commenter states that it is unclear whether the initial compliance times are the interval values.
We agree that the values specified in the “INTERVAL” column of the “MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION TASKS” table in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05 should be used as the initial compliance time, as well as the repetitive interval. We have also clarified the compliance time in paragraph (f) of this AD by adding the word “thereafter” to more clearly state that “ * * * the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter * * *.”
Airbus requests that we revise the “Relevant Service Information” section to state that “Section 1, ‘Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,' of Document 95A.1928/05 describes certain FAL inspections, which are periodic inspections of certain features for latent failures that could contribute to a fire.” In the NPRM, we specified that the latent failures could contribute to an ignition source. As justification, Airbus states that not all three tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05 contribute to minimizing the risk of an ignition source: Only Task 3 minimizes the risk of an ignition source, while Tasks 1 and 2 minimize the occurrence of a combustible environment. We agree with Airbus's statements. However, we have not revised this AD in this regard since the “Relevant Service Information” section is not retained in a final rule.
Airbus states that it does not agree that there is an unsafe condition on Model A300 series airplanes, prior to accomplishing the maintenance/inspection tasks in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05. Airbus agrees that performing these tasks contributes to minimizing the risk of either an ignition source (Task 3) or the occurrence of a combustible environment (Tasks 1 and 2). In regard to the critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs), Airbus states that no unsafe condition exists at delivery, and that no unsafe condition will develop provided that operators observe the CDCCLs after delivery. Airbus further states that the CDCCLs are introduced to reduce the risk that an operator may inadvertently alter the design or installation, thus introducing a less safe configuration.
We infer Airbus would like us to revise the unsafe condition in this AD to incorporate its comments. We do not agree to revise the unsafe condition of this AD. Fuel airworthiness limitations (FALs) are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure modes associated with an unsafe condition, as defined in FAA Memorandum 2003-112-15, “SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria,” dated February 25, 2003. These FALs are identified in failure conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks or practices or both are not performed in accordance with a manufacturer's requirements. As Airbus notes, if an operator does not observe the CDCCLs after delivery, then an unsafe condition could occur. For this reason we must mandate Document 95A.1928/05 to ensure the CDCCLs are observed. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Start Printed Page 60242
Airbus requests that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM to state that operators are required to update their internal procedures and documentation to ensure appropriate management and control of the CDCCLs specified in Section 2 of Document 95A.1928/05. Airbus states that paragraph (h) of the NPRM is unclear about what an operator is expected to do with the CDCCLs. Airbus further states that paragraph (h) of the NPRM tells operators to add the CDCCLs to the ALS, but Airbus states that it has already done so for operators. Airbus also states that the ALS is part of the type certification (TC) documentation and is not changed by operators. TradeWinds Airlines requests that we provide guidance as to what is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of the NPRM. TradeWinds Airlines states that simply listing the CDCCLs in a maintenance schedule would have little or no effect on preserving critical ignition source prevention features. The commenter further states that the Airbus A300 AMM would be the source of the approved data for accomplishing the tasks related to the CDCCLs, and that revisions to the AMM would be sufficient for providing instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention features.
Although we understand Airbus's concerns and welcome any feedback that would improve the readability or usability of an AD, the suggested language is too vague to be legally enforceable, so we cannot use it in this AD. We understand that Airbus has revised its airworthiness limitations document. However, according to section 39.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.7), no person may operate a product unless the requirements of an applicable AD have been met. The burden is placed on the operator, not on the manufacturer, to ensure that the requirements of an AD are met. The requirement, as stated in the NPRM, is for the operator to revise its copy of the airworthiness limitations document. This ensures that each affected operator maintains a current copy of the required airworthiness limitations.
Concerning Airbus's statement that paragraph (h) of the NPRM does not clearly specify what an operator is expected to with the CDCCLs, we clarify that paragraph (h) requires affected operators to revise their copies of the airworthiness limitations document to include the CDCCL requirements. This is the only requirement imposed under this AD for CDCCLs; once this revision has been accomplished, compliance with paragraph (h) of this AD has been completed. Subsequently, section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)) requires an affected operator to comply with the revised Airworthiness Limitations document. Ensuring that one's maintenance program and the actions of its maintenance personnel are in accordance with the Airworthiness Limitations is required, but not by the AD. According to 14 CFR 91.403(c), no person may operate an aircraft for which airworthiness limitations have been issued unless those limitations have been complied with. Therefore, there is no need to further expand the requirements of the AD beyond that which was proposed because 14 CFR 91.403(c) already imposes the appropriate required action after the airworthiness limitations are revised. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Airbus disagrees with the statement that it has not yet published a document titled, “Airbus ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations,” for Model A300 series airplanes. We made that statement in the “Clarification of Service Information” section of the NPRM. Airbus acknowledges that Document 95A.1928/05 has not yet been written in the ALS Part 5 format, but that it intends to do so after Issue 2 of Document 95A.1928/05 has been approved. Airbus states that EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0094 R1 correctly refers to Document 95A.1928/05, since that document contains the actual limitations.
We infer that Airbus requests we revise paragraphs (f) and (h) of this AD to incorporate the information in “ * * * Airbus ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, as defined in Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05. * * *” We agree that the relevant fuel airworthiness limitations are specified in Document 95A.1928/05. In review of the service information Airbus has published on-line, we could not find any document titled “Airbus ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations.” The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that we incorporate by reference all the documents that are necessary for accomplishing the requirements of this AD. Further, we are required to cite the document title exactly as it appears on the document. Since the limitations are in Document 95A.1928/05, we do not need to refer to Airbus ALS Part 5. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities Start Printed Page 60243under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
2007-22-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-15239. Docket No. FAA-2007-27927; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-182-AD.
(f) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on July 6, 2007), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.”
(k) EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0094 R1, dated May 2, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(l) You must use Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/​federal-register/​cfr/​ibr-locations.html.
[FR Doc. E7-20820 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]