[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30471-30474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14168]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94-NM-243-AD]


Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 Series 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing 
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Airbus Model A300 
series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive inspections for 
cracking of the No. 2 flap beams, and replacement of the flap beams, if 
necessary. That AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the No. 2 
flap beams. This action would provide optional modifications for 
extending certain inspection thresholds, and an optional terminating 
modification for certain inspections. This action also would expand the 
applicability of the existing AD to include Model A300-600 series 
airplanes. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to 
prevent asymmetry of the flaps due to cracking of the No. 2 flap beams.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-243-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 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 
[[Page 30472]] the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-
2776; fax (206) 227-1181.

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-243-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-243-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    On March 25, 1985, the FAA issued AD 85-07-04, amendment 39-5027 
(49 FR 45755, April 2, 1985), applicable to all Airbus A300 series 
airplanes, to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the No. 2 
flap beams, and replacement of the flap beams, if necessary. That 
action was prompted by reports of cracking detected in the No. 2 flap 
beams. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent asymmetry of 
the flaps due to cracking in the No. 2 flap beams.
    Since the issuance of that AD, Airbus has issued the following 
service bulletin revisions for Model A300 series airplanes:
    1. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 6, dated July 16, 
1993, which describes procedures for repetitive ultrasonic inspections 
for cracking in the base member and side members of the No. 2 flap 
beams, and replacement of the beams, if necessary. (Revision 1 of this 
service bulletin was referenced in the existing AD.)
    2. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-128, Revision 3, dated January 
26, 1990, which describes procedures for optional modification of the 
No. 2 flap beams (Modification 4740). This modification entails 
performing an eddy current inspection of the bolt holes of the flap 
beam and oversizing these holes. Accomplishment of this modification 
will provide a new flight cycle threshold before the next inspection is 
necessary. (The original issue of this service bulletin was referenced 
in the existing AD.)
    3. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-141, Revision 7, dated July 16, 
1993, which describes a second optional modification (Modification 
5815). This modification will extend the fatigue life of the flap 
beams. The modification involves cold working and increasing the size 
of the bolt holes, and installing interference fit bolts. As with 
Modification 4740, accomplishment of Modification 5815 will provide a 
new flight cycle threshold before the next inspection is necessary.
    Since Model A300-600 series airplanes are similar in design to 
Model A300 series airplanes in the subject area, the Model A300-600 is 
subject to the same addressed unsafe condition. Accordingly, Airbus has 
issued the following service bulletins that apply to Model A300-600 
series airplanes:
    1. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6005, Revision 2, dated December 
16, 1993, which describes procedures for repetitive ultrasonic 
inspections for cracking in the base member and side members of the No. 
2 flap beams. (These inspections are identical to the inspections 
specified for Model A300 series airplanes in Airbus Service Bulletin 
A300-57-116.)
    2. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6006, Revision 4, dated July 25, 
1994, which describes procedures for installing Modification 5815. This 
modification entails increasing the size of and cold working certain 
holes in the No. 2 flap beams. Once accomplished, this modification 
increases the life of the flap beam and eliminates the need for 
repetitive inspections, if it is accomplished after 15,000 total 
landings have been accumulated and if no cracking is detected while 
performing the inspections described in Airbus Service Bulletin No. 
A300-57-6005, Revision 2, dated December 16, 1993.
    The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the 
airworthiness authority for France, has approved these service 
bulletins, and has issued French airworthiness directive 86-187-
076(B)R3, dated March 2, 1994, in order to assure the continued 
airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
    These airplane models are manufactured in France and are 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 supersede AD 85-07-04 to 
continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the No. 2 
flap beams of Model A300 series airplanes, and replacement of the flap 
beams, if necessary. The proposed AD would require identical 
inspections of Model A300-600 series airplanes. The proposed AD also 
would provide an optional terminating modification for the repetitive 
inspections on the Model 300-600 series airplanes, and optional 
modifications for extending certain inspection thresholds for Model 
A300 series airplanes. The actions would be required to be accomplished 
in accordance with the service bulletins described previously.
    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 
[[Page 30473]] 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 long-standing requirement.
    The FAA estimates that 68 airplanes of U.S. registry would be 
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 6 work 
hours 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 $24,480, or $360 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.
    Should an operator of a Model A300-600 series airplane elect to 
accomplish the optional terminating action rather than continue the 
repetitive inspections, it would take approximately 55 work hours to 
accomplish it, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the total cost impact of the optional terminating action 
would be $3,300 per airplane.
    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 removing amendment 39-5027 (49 FR 
45755, April 2, 1985), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), to read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 94-NM-243-AD. Supersedes AD 85-07-04, 
Amendment 39-5027.

    Applicability: All Model A300 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 (f) 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 asymmetry of the No. 2 flaps, accomplish the 
following:

    Note 2: Paragraph (a) of this AD restates the requirement for an 
initial and repetitive inspections contained in paragraph A. of AD 
85-07-04. Therefore, for operators who have previously accomplished 
at least the initial inspection in accordance with AD 85-07-04, 
paragraph (a) of this AD requires that the next scheduled inspection 
be performed within the intervals specified in (a)(1), (a)(2), or 
(a)(3), as applicable, after the last inspection performed in 
accordance with paragraph A. of AD 85-07-04.

    Note 3: Measurement of crack length is performed by measurement 
of the probe displacement (perpendicular to symmetry plane of beam) 
between defect indication appearance and its complete disappearance. 
The bolt hole indication should not be interpreted as an indication 
of a defect. These two indications appear very close together 
because the defects originate from the bolt holes.

    (a) For Model A300 series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation 
of 15,000 total landings, or within the next 120 days after May 9, 
1985 (the effective date of AD 85-07-04, amendment 39-5027), 
whichever occurs later, inspect for cracking of the base steel 
member and light alloy side members of the No. 2 flap beams, left 
hand and right hand, in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision No. 6, 
dated July 16, 1993.

    Note 4: Inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD that 
have been accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-116, Revision 1, 
dated August 27, 1983; Revision 2, dated April 24, 1984; Revision 3, 
dated July 20, 1984; Revision 4, dated August 13, 1986; or Revision 
5, dated July 10, 1989; as applicable; are considered acceptable for 
compliance with the applicable action specified in this amendment.

    (1) If no cracking is detected: Except as provided by paragraph 
(c) of this AD, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 
1,700 landings until the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD 
are accomplished.
    (2) If any crack is detected that is less than or equal to 4 mm: 
Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 250 landings, until 
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are accomplished.
    (3) If any crack is detected that exceeds 4 mm: Prior to further 
flight, replace the flap beam in accordance with the service 
bulletin, and prior to the accumulation of 15,000 flight cycles on 
the replaced flap beam, perform the ultrasonic inspection as 
required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
    (b) For Model A300 series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation 
of 15,000 total landings, or within the next 1,000 landings after 
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform an 
ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking of the No. 2 flap beams, in 
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin No. A300-57-116, Revision 6, 
dated July 16, 1993. Accomplishment of this inspection terminates 
the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD.
    (1) If no cracking is detected: Except as provided by paragraph 
(c) of this AD, repeat the ultrasonic inspections thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole, and that 
crack that is less than or equal to 4 mm in length: Repeat the 
ultrasonic inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 
landings.
    (3) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole and that crack 
is greater than 4 mm in length: Prior to further flight, replace the 
flap beam in accordance with the service bulletin, and prior to the 
accumulation of 15,000 flight cycles on the replaced flap beam, 
perform the ultrasonic inspection as required by this paragraph. 
[[Page 30474]] 
    (c) For Model A300 series airplanes: After accomplishing the 
initial inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, 
accomplishment of either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD 
extends the fatigue life of the No. 2 flap track beam as specified 
in those paragraphs, provided that no cracking is detected during 
any inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD.
    (1) Removal of any damage and the installation of larger 
diameter bolts on the No. 2 flap track beam (Modification No. 4740), 
in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin No. A300-57-128, Revision 
3, dated January 26, 1990, extends the interval for the first 
repetitive inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD from 
1,700 landings to 12,000 landings, provided that Modification No. 
4740 is accomplished prior to the accumulation of 16,700 total 
landings on the flap beams. Following accomplishment of the first 
repetitive inspection, subsequent repetitive inspections shall be 
performed at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings. Or
    (2) Cold working of the bolt holes and the installation of 
larger diameter bolts on the No. 2 flap track beam (Modification No. 
5815), in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin No. A300-57-141, 
Revision 7, dated July 16, 1993, extends the interval for the first 
repetitive inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD from 
1,700 landings to the interval specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) or 
(c)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If interference fit bolts that are 15/32-inch in diameter 
are fitted, the interval for the first repetitive inspection 
required by paragraph (b) of this AD is extended to 22,000 landings, 
provided that Modification 5815 is accomplished prior to the 
accumulation of 16,700 total landings on the flap beam. Following 
accomplishment of the first repetitive inspection required by 
paragraph (b) of this AD, subsequent repetitive inspections shall be 
performed at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings. Or
    (ii) If interference fit bolts that are \7/16\- or \3/8\-inch in 
diameter are fitted, the interval for the first repetitive 
inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD is extended to 
33,000 landings, provided that Modification 5815 is accomplished 
prior to the accumulation of 16,700 total landings on the flap beam. 
Following accomplishment of the first repetitive inspection required 
by paragraph (b) of this AD, subsequent repetitive inspections shall 
be performed at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings.
    (d) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Prior to the 
accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within the next 1,000 
landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
later, perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking of the 
No. 2 flap track beams, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 
No. A300-57-6005, Revision 2, dated December 16, 1993.
    (1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the ultrasonic 
inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,700 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole and that crack 
that is less than or equal to 4 mm in length: Repeat the ultrasonic 
inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 landings.
    (3) If any crack is detected beyond the bolt hole and that crack 
is greater than 4 mm in length: Prior to further flight, replace the 
flap beam in accordance with the service bulletin, and prior to the 
accumulation of 15,000 landings on the replaced flap beam, perform 
the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
    (e) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Installation of 
oversized transition fit bolts in cold-worked holes, in accordance 
with Airbus Service Bulletin No. A300-57-6006 (Modification 5815), 
Revision 4, dated July 25, 1994, constitutes terminating action for 
the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (d) of this AD, 
provided that no cracking is detected during any inspection required 
by paragraph (d) of this AD, and provided that the installation is 
accomplished prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings. If 
any bolt requires oversizing above 7/16-inch diameter during 
accomplishment of this installation, prior to further flight, repair 
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization 
Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

    Note 5: If Airbus Service Bulletin No. A300-57-6005, Revision 2, 
dated December 16, 1993, is accomplished concurrently with Airbus 
Service Bulletin No. A300-57-6006 , Revision 3, dated December 16, 
1993 (Modification 5815), the ultrasonic inspection for cracking 
required by paragraph (d) of this AD need not be performed since the 
eddy current inspection detailed for Modification 5815 is more 
comprehensive.

    (f) 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 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 6: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.

    (g) 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 June 5, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-14168 Filed 6-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U