[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 384-386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-59]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-193-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A300, A310, and
A300-600 series airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive
mechanical and electrical inspections to detect chafing of electrical
wiring; and repair or replacement of discrepant parts, and
repositioning the looms. This proposal is prompted by reports of wire
chafing in the forward avionic compartment. The actions specified by
the proposed AD are intended to prevent such chafing, which may lead to
a short in the electrical circuits at the 104VU panel; this condition
could result in unwanted depressurization, loss of wing de-icing, and
loss of in-flight engine restart capability.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-193-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.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Slotte, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1320.
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 notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
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 notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 94-NM-193-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-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 94-NM-193-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600
series airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has received several reports
of wire chafing in the forward avionic compartment. Investigation
revealed that the chafing occurred at the top of the 104VU panel
between the extending ladder in the avionic compartment (in the stowed
position) and the 104VU wire bundles through the brown plastic cover;
this cover protects the upper part of the 103VU/104VU/105VU panels.
Investigation revealed that this chafing occurs when some of the
attachment rivets of the ladder support shaft are sheared due to
mishandling of the ladder. Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes
have significantly more wires in the subject area than Model A300
series airplanes. These wire bundles are sometimes positioned very
close to the ladder. As a result, if the protective cover is damaged or
torn, there is a risk of the cable chafing, even without rivet damage,
for Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes. This risk is greater in a
case of cable bundle ballooning or when tie-wraps are loose or missing.
Chafing of the electrical wire cables between the upper part of the
104VU panel and the extending ladder in the avionic compartment, if not
corrected, may lead to a short in the electrical circuits at the 104VU
panel, which could result in unwanted depressurization, loss of wing
de-icing, and loss of in-flight engine restart capability.
Airbus has issued All Operators Telex AOT 24-05, Revision 1, dated
June 7, 1994, which describes procedures for repetitive mechanical and
electrical inspections to detect discrepancies, repair or replacement
of discrepant [[Page 385]] parts, and repositioning the looms. The
mechanical inspections include an inspection of the protective cover,
ladder support shaft, and attaching rivets. The electrical inspection
includes an inspection of the electrical bundles, and an inspection to
determine adequacy of clearance between the looms and the ladder. The
DGAC classified this all operators telex as mandatory and issued French
airworthiness directive 94-187-163(B), dated August 17, 1994, in order
to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would require repetitive
mechanical and electrical inspections to detect discrepancies; and
repair or replacement of discrepant parts, and repositioning the looms.
The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
all operators telex described previously.
This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has
advised that it currently is developing a modification that will
positively address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Once this
modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA may
consider additional rulemaking.
As a result of recent communications with the Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America, the FAA has learned that, in general,
some operators may misunderstand the legal effect of AD's on airplanes
that are identified in the applicability provision of the AD, but that
have been altered or repaired in the area addressed by the AD. The FAA
points out that all airplanes identified in the applicability provision
of an AD are legally subject to the AD. If an airplane has been altered
or repaired in the affected area in such a way as to affect compliance
with the AD, the owner or operator is required to obtain FAA approval
for an alternative method of compliance with the AD, in accordance with
the paragraph of each AD that provides for such approvals. A note has
been included in this notice to clarify this requirement.
The FAA estimates that 69 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work
hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to
be $4,140, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The total cost impact figure discussed above is 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 regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
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. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 1423; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.89.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Airbus Industrie: Docket 94-NM-193-AD.
Applicability: All Model A300, A310, and A300-600 series
airplanes, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent unwanted depressurization, loss of wing de-icing, and
loss of in-flight engine restart capability, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 600 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Perform mechanical inspections to detect discrepancies, in
accordance with paragraph 4.2.1. of Airbus All Operators Telex AOT
24-05, Revision 1, dated June 7, 1994. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,050 flight hours. If any
discrepancy is detected, prior to further flight, repair or replace
discrepant parts, and perform an electrical inspection in accordance
with the AOT.
(2) Perform an electrical inspection to detect discrepancies, in
accordance with paragraph 4.2.2. of Airbus All Operators Telex AOT
24-05, Revision 1, dated June 7, 1994. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months. If any discrepancy
is detected, prior to further flight, repair or replace discrepant
parts, and reposition the looms, in accordance with the AOT.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators [[Page 386]] shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 28, 1994.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-59 Filed 1-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
