A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A330-202, - 203, -223, and -243 airplanes, and A330-300 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2004 (69 FR 11552). That action proposed to require modification of the center box junction and upper sections of the center fuselage to reinforce the frame base junction, and related corrective action.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
Requests To Change Compliance Time
One commenter asks that the compliance times specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the proposed AD be changed to specify, 'since the first flight of the airplane,'' as mandated in the airworthiness directive issued by the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France. The commenter states that the first flight of the airplane should be the starting point to record and count flight hours and flight cycles, as recorded in the logbooks for the airframe and engines. The commenter adds that it should be the first flight after delivery of the airplane to the first operator.
The FAA does not agree. The justification for the difference between the proposed AD and the DGACs airworthiness directive, as specified in the "Differences'' section of the proposed AD, is the following: "This decision is based on our determination that "since the first flight of the airplane" may be interpreted differently by different operators. We find that our proposed terminology is generally understood within the industry and records will always exist that establish these dates with certainty. In addition, we have determined that a 6-month grace period will ensure an acceptable level of safety and is an appropriate interval of time wherein the modification can be accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals for the majority of affected operators." We have not changed the AD in this regard.
The same commenter asks that the effective date for the compliance time specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) of this proposed AD be changed to match the effective date of the airworthiness directive issued by the DGAC. The DGAC airworthiness directive was effective on November 9, 2002.
We do not agree. We do not express compliance times in terms of calendar dates unless engineering analysis establishes a direct relationship between the date and either the compliance threshold or the grace period. Additionally, in consideration of the average utilization rate by the affected U.S. operators, and the practical aspects of an orderly modification of the U.S. fleet during regular maintenance periods, we have determined that a grace period of 6 months after the effective date of this AD, is appropriate.
Another commenter asks that the 6-month grace period specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD, for airplanes beyond the compliance threshold specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposed AD, be extended to 18 months. The commenter states that it anticipates incorporation of the subject modification during upcoming C-checks, and that an 18-month compliance time would align with those maintenance checks. The commenter adds that if an operator has already accumulated more than 11,400 total flight cycles or 33,100 total flight hours on the airplane, the operator may be forced to do the subject modification outside of a heavy maintenance environment, which would extend the out- of-service time. The commenter notes that extending the grace period to 18 months would allow for accomplishment of the modification without specially scheduled downtime outside of scheduled maintenance.
We do not agree. In developing an appropriate compliance timefor this action, we considered the safety implications, operators" normal maintenance schedules, and the compliance time recommended by the airplane manufacturer for the timely accomplishment of the required actions. In consideration of these items, we have determined that a grace period of 6 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety and is an appropriate interval of time wherein the required actions can be accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals for the majority of affected operators. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (d) of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that justify that a different compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.
Explanation of Change to Final Rule
The number of affected airplanes has changed since issuance of the proposed AD; therefore, we have changed the Cost Impact section in this final rule to reflect the correct number of airplanes.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data and have determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change previously described. We have determined that this change will not significantly increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
We estimate that 16 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take about 67 work hours per airplane to do the modification, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $1,420 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $92,400, or $5,775 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the futureif this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive: