[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33877-33881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11780]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-26051; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-154-AD; 
Amendment 39-15112; AD 2007-13-08]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the

[[Page 33878]]

products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing 
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an airworthiness authority 
of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an 
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a fire in 
the auxiliary power unit air intake. We are issuing this AD to require 
actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 25, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 25, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 
Room PL-401, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, 
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 
227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance 
of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt 
MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce 
safety risks to the public. This process continues to allow all FAA AD 
issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure 
Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our 
technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct 
unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.
    This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we 
considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe 
condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this 
reason might not follow our plain language principles.
    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. 
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2006 (71 
FR 60444). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the 
auxiliary power unit (APU) starter motor, APU inlet plenum, and APU air 
intake, as well as repetitive cleaning of the APU air intake; and 
applicable corrective actions. The MCAI states that an operator 
reported black smoke at the rear of the fuselage during taxi after 
landing. The smoke was caused by a fire in the APU air intake. Analysis 
has demonstrated that following numerous unsuccessful APU start 
attempts in flight, there is a risk of reverse flow, leading to flame 
propagation to the APU air inlet and air intake duct. If this zone is 
contaminated, a fire may be initiated. The flightcrew operating manual 
limits the number of APU start attempts as follows: After three starter 
motor duty cycles, wait 60 minutes before attempting three more cycles.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Include Terminating Action

    Airbus states that it has two final fixes available. No change to 
the NPRM is requested.
    We infer that Airbus wants us to change the AD applicability and 
add optional terminating action to the AD. Since the issuance of the 
NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the 
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has 
issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0153 R1, dated November 27, 
2006, and corrected on November 29, 2006. The EASA AD applicability 
excludes airplanes that are equipped with Hamilton Sundstrand APIC APS 
3200 APUs and that have incorporated Airbus Modification 35803 in 
production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1070 in service. The 
EASA AD applicability also excludes airplanes that are equipped with 
Honeywell 131-9A APUs, and that have incorporated Airbus Modification 
35936 in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075 in service. 
The EASA AD also adds an optional terminating action for the repetitive 
inspections and cleaning tasks for airplanes on which Airbus Service 
Bulletin A320-49-1070, dated July 28, 2006 (for airplanes equipped with 
APIC APS 3200 APUs); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, dated 
September 22, 2006, or Revision 01, dated December 1, 2006 (for 
airplanes equipped with Honeywell 131-9A APUs), has been embodied in 
service.
    In light of the revised EASA AD, we agree with the commenter, and 
have revised the applicability and added a new paragraph (e)(5) to this 
AD to include the optional terminating action.

Request To Remove Airplanes Equipped With Honeywell APUs

    Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, 
requests that airplanes equipped with Honeywell APUs be removed from 
the applicability of the NPRM. ATA states that the subject incident 
occurred on a Hamilton Sundstrand APU. The ATA member states that 
Honeywell provided data showing that in more than 14 million APU hours, 
not one event similar to the Hamilton Sundstrand APU incident occurred 
on a Honeywell APU.
    We disagree with the commenters. Through analysis of both Hamilton 
Sundstrand and Honeywell APUs, the EASA has determined that, following 
numerous unsuccessful APU start attempts during flight, there is a risk 
of reverse flow leading to flame propagation in the APU air inlet and 
air intake duct. We have made no change to the AD in this regard, 
except for the previously noted exclusion of the Honeywell APUs in the 
EASA AD.

Request To Allow Incorporation of Alternate Service Information

    ATA, on behalf of one of its members, states that if airplanes 
equipped with Honeywell APUs are not removed from the applicability, 
the AD should allow incorporation of Diehl Service Bulletin 3888394-49-
7899 as a terminating action for airplanes having Honeywell APUs. ATA 
states that the service bulletin releases new software for the 
electronic control box that addresses the identified unsafe condition.
    We agree with the commenters. The Diehl service bulletin is 
referenced in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, dated September 22, 
2006; and Revision 01, dated December 1, 2006, as an additional source 
of service information for accomplishing the modification. We have 
referenced the Airbus service bulletin in a new paragraph (e)(5) of 
this AD, as described above.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    ATA, on behalf of one of its members, asks that the 2,400- and 600-
flight-hour compliance times for the repetitive tasks be changed. ATA 
states that these compliance times do not take into account operator 
experience. ATA notes that the ATA member performs starter motor 
inspections during a 1,200-hour (2A) check, and has not experienced a 
failure. The ATA member would like to see data indicating how the 
compliance times were established.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to change the 
compliance times. The commenter provides no alternative compliance 
times for the repetitive

[[Page 33879]]

tasks, or technical justification for changing the compliance times. In 
developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we 
considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, 
and the practical aspect of accomplishing the repetitive inspections 
and cleaning tasks within a period of time that corresponds to the 
normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. We point out 
that the compliance times correspond with those in the MCAI. However, 
according to the provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of the AD, we may 
approve a request to adjust the compliance time if the request includes 
data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an 
acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this 
regard.

Request To Incorporate/Publish Certain Information

    The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states 
that, frequently, airworthiness directives are based on service 
information originating with the type certificate holder or its 
suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately 
authored instruments generally having copyright protection against 
duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document 
is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an 
airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and 
becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is 
used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be 
referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document. 
MARPA states that, by definition, public laws must be public, which 
means they cannot rely upon private writings; especially when the 
private writings originate in a foreign country. MARPA notes that since 
the interpretation of a document is a question of law, and not fact, a 
service document not incorporated by reference will not be considered 
in a legal finding of the meaning of an airworthiness directive. MARPA 
is concerned that the failure to incorporate essential service 
information could result in a court decision invalidating the 
airworthiness directive.
    MARPA notes that it has been advised that service documents are not 
usually incorporated by reference into proposed actions (NPRMs). MARPA 
adds that there is no indication in the proposed action that the FAA 
intends to incorporate by reference the necessary service information, 
and it is unclear whether that has been overlooked. MARPA asks that 
future proposed actions indicate the FAA intent by including the 
following statement: ``We intend to incorporate by reference the 
following publication(s):''.
    MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should 
be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management 
System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA 
believes that this publication should occur when the NPRM is published, 
to permit the public to review and comment on the entire proposed 
action. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by 
reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal 
Register needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the 
affected individuals; traditionally, ``affected individuals'' means 
aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service 
information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of 
affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft 
maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft 
owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes 
maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair 
shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations 
manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 
21.303 (``Replacement and modification parts'') of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the distribution to owners 
may, when the owner is a financing or leasing institution, not actually 
reach the persons responsible for accomplishing the airworthiness 
directive. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed 
essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by 
reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in the DMS.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to indicate our intent 
in an NPRM to incorporate by reference particular publications. When we 
reference certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can 
assume we intend to IBR that service information, as required by the 
Office of the Federal Register. No change to this AD is necessary in 
regard to the commenter's request.
    In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on 
the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process 
of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the 
DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all 
aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will 
consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to 
the AD is necessary in response to this comment.

Request To Delete ``Certified'' From AD Applicability

    MARPA questions the use of the adjective ``certified'' for the 
subject airplane models. MARPA asks what a ``certified'' model is and 
if the use of that word implies that ``uncertified'' models exist that 
are exempt from the NPRM. MARPA adds that perhaps the word 
``certificated'' was intended instead, but was changed to avoid the use 
of the same word twice in the same sentence, which would make more 
sense. MARPA suggests that the word ``certified'' be dropped, as it 
appears to be both superfluous and confusing.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We identified ``all 
certified models'' in the applicability of the NPRM to follow the MCAI; 
that phrase refers to all dash numbers of a particular airplane model. 
``All certified models'' is different from ``certificated in any 
category,'' which refers to the category of type certification for the 
airplane (normal, utility, transport, etc.). We made no change to the 
AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these 
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

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 a U.S. court of 
law. 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 required different actions in this AD from those 
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences 
are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements, if 
any, take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

[[Page 33880]]

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects 
about 675 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would 
take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The average 
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate 
the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $216,000, or $320 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 AD will not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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 AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 
docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments 
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket 
Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments 
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2007-13-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-15112. Docket No. FAA-2006-26051; 
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-154-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 25, 
2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 and A321 
airplanes, all certified models, all serial numbers, certificated in 
any category; except airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes equipped with Hamilton Sundstrand APIC APS 3200 
auxiliary power units (APUs), that have received Airbus Modification 
35803 in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1070 in 
service.
    (2) Airplanes equipped with Honeywell 131-9A APUs, that have 
received Airbus Modification 35936 in production or Airbus Service 
Bulletin A320-49-1075 in service.

Reason

    (d) An operator reported black smoke at the rear of the fuselage 
during taxi after landing. The smoke was caused by a fire in the APU 
air intake. Analysis has demonstrated that following numerous 
unsuccessful APU start attempts in flight, there is a risk of 
reverse flow, leading to flame propagation to the APU air inlet and 
air intake duct. If this zone is contaminated, a fire may be 
initiated. The flightcrew operating manual limits the number of APU 
start attempts as follows: After three starter motor duty cycles, 
wait 60 minutes before attempting three more cycles. The MCAI 
mandates repetitive inspections of the APU starter motor, APU inlet 
plenum, and APU air intake, as well as repetitive cleaning of the 
APU air intake; and applicable corrective actions.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions except as 
stated in paragraph (f) below.
    (1) Within the next 600 flight hours following the effective 
date of this AD: Inspect the APU starter motor, APU air inlet 
plenum, and APU air intake, and do the applicable corrective actions 
before further flight, in accordance with the instructions given in 
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated February 2, 
2006.
    (2) Repeat the inspection per above paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, 
at intervals not exceeding 600 flight hours.
    (3) Prior to the accumulation of 2,400 flight hours since the 
aircraft's first flight, or within the next 600 flight hours after 
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless 
accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with 
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, dated June 2, 2005: Clean the 
APU air intake in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus 
Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated February 2, 2006.
    (4) Repeat the cleaning task per above paragraph (e)(3) of this 
AD, at intervals not exceeding 2,400 flight hours.
    (5) After embodiment of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1070, 
dated July 28, 2006 (on airplanes equipped with APIC APS 3200 APUs); 
or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1075, dated September 22, 2006, 
or Revision 01, dated December 1, 2006 (on airplanes equipped with 
Honeywell 131-9A APUs); as applicable; the inspections and cleaning 
as described above are no longer required.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) None.

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, 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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 
227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any 
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office 
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (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 
FAA-approved 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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in 
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information 
collection

[[Page 33881]]

requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness 
Directive 2006-0153 R1, dated November 27, 2006 (corrected November 
29, 2006), which references Airbus Service Bulletins A320-49-1068, 
Revision 01, dated February 2, 2006; A320-49-1070, dated July 28, 
2006; and A320-49-1075, dated September 22, 2006, and Revision 01, 
dated December 1, 2006; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 
01, dated February 2, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, 
unless the AD specifies otherwise. If accomplished, you must use the 
applicable Airbus Service Bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD 
to perform the optional terminating action specified in this AD.

                              Table 1.--Optional Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Airbus Service Bulletin                  Revision level                           Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A320-49-1070.............................  Original....................  July 28, 2006.
A320-49-1075.............................  Original....................  September 22, 2006.
A320-49-1075.............................  01..........................  December 1, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; 
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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification.
 [FR Doc. E7-11780 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P