[Federal Register: June 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 118)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33877-33881]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jn07-11]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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