A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 96-18-18, amendment 39-9744 (61 FR 47808, September 11, 1996), which is applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on June 11, 2002 (67 FR 39900). That action proposed to retain the requirements of the existing AD but shorten the initial compliance time and repetitive inspection intervals. That action also proposed to expand the applicability to include additional airplanes.
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.
Support for the Proposed AD
The commenters generally support the proposed AD, with the following recommended changes.
Request To Revise Compliance Time of Paragraph (b)(1)
Several commentersrequest that the compliance time of paragraph (b)(1) (applicable to Model A300-600 series airplanes) of the proposed AD be revised. The commenters state that the proposed wording would effect a compliance time more restrictive than that mandated in the corresponding French airworthiness directive. The commenters add that such a compliance time would penalize airlines for inspections done in compliance with the new proposed requirements that were accomplished before the effective date of the AD by requiring reinspection in 60 days.
Paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed AD is incorrect. The FAA had intended to match the compliance time of AD 96-18-18 with that mandated by the parallel French airworthiness directive 2001-355(B), dated August 8, 2001. Therefore, the compliance time in paragraph (b)(1) of this final rule has been revised to 6,100 flight cycles, with a grace period of 750 flight cycles/1,900 flight hours (whichever occurs first). This change does not result in a more restrictive inspection schedule than that of the proposed AD, and consequently does not impose an additional burden on any operator.
Request To Allow Flight With Cracks
Several commenters request that paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proposed AD be revised to allow temporary continued flight with cracks under certain conditions found during inspection. The commenters state that such a provision would provide the FAA with data to monitor airplanes with cracks and still allow a level of safety equivalent to that of the proposed AD. One commenter describes an inspection schedule based on crack length, agreed to by the FAA and the manufacturer.
The FAA partially agrees, but does not concur with the request to allow flight with known cracking in a major frame in a primary structure. The FAA finds it necessary to evaluate each crack finding on a case-by-case basis, and to require repair procedures or repetitive inspections based on that evaluation. The FAA may consider allowing flight with known cracks as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), based on the configuration of the cracks and the operator's ability to safely monitor the cracks by inspection until a repair can be implemented. Given the expertise required to adequately monitor cracking conditions in a manner that ensures the safety of the public, the FAA would consider such a provision only as an AMOC. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue. However, after operators' inspection findings have been validated, the FAA may consider issuing an AMOC with general applicability to all affected airplanes, provided Airbus can specify a comprehensive crack-monitoring program that reduces the need for direct FAA engineering involvement in individual crack-monitoring programs.
Request To Extend Compliance Time of Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
Two commenters request that paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD be revised to reflect a compliance time of "750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours,whichever occurs first." According to the commenters, the proposed 60-day grace period would result in economic hardship to operators. The commenters request the same grace period as that for Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes.
The FAA agrees. The grace period, inadvertently written in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) in the proposed AD as 60 days, has been revised in this final rule to 750 flight cycles/1,900 flight hours (whichever occurs first).
Request To Coordinate Compliance Times of Related ADs
Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to consider the effects of existing ADs that involve work in the same area. The commenters refer to three related ADs: AD 95-24-04, amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995); AD 97-16-06, amendment 39-10097 (62 FR 41257, August 1, 1997), as corrected (62 FR 44888, August 25, 1997); and AD 2002-11-04, amendment 39-12765 (67 FR 38193, June 3, 2002). The commenters propose a harmonized inspection threshold to take advantageof access, down time, and maintenance costs associated with the referenced ADs.
The FAA recognizes the potential value of a harmonized approach to address multiple inspections of the same general area based on other ADs, and will take the commenters' suggestion under advisement for future rulemaking actions. However, in this case the identified unsafe condition is an immediate concern properly addressed in a unique AD. Coordinating a comprehensive review of related ADs would further delay issuance of this AD, which, in any event, is not the proper forum to address such a review. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue.
Request To Consider Repair Interference
Two commenters state that the proposed AD does not address the effect of any impingement of repairs (in case of a crack finding) on the inspection areas of various ADs in this area and/or interference between repairs. The FAA infers that the commenters are requesting that the proposed AD be revised to account for the potential effects of repairs that may have been done in the inspection area of this AD.
The details of the effect of other repairs relative to this AD are unknown, so the FAA cannot address the comment other than to state that this subject is discussed in Note 1 of the AD. Note 1 explains the implications and consequences of previous repairs in the subject area relative to compliance with the requirements of this AD. The FAA suggests that, for any deviations due to repairs in the affected area, each operator combine its compliance proposals into a single request for approval of an AMOC to reduce the number of requests for AMOCs this AD may generate. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue.
Request To Allow New Repairs Based on Prior Approved Repairs
Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to "take credit for corrective actions (repairs/rework, etc.) in the subject area, approved by either [the FAA] or the DGAC" to "minimize the AMOC process and aircraft return to service." The FAA infers that the commenters request approval for repair of newly discovered cracks based on previously approved repairs.
The FAA does not agree. Because of the nature of the cracking and the complexity of the area subject to the cracking, the FAA finds that a repair method that is appropriate for one crack configuration may not adequately address all possible crack configurations. The manufacturer has not issued a service bulletin that provides instructions for repair procedures. If such service information is developed and released, the FAA may issue further rulemaking to allow or require crack repair in accordance with that service bulletin. Until then, however, repairs must be approved through the AMOC process, as provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue.
Request To Add Service Information
Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to incorporate Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A300-53-6135, Revision 01, dated February 2002. The commenters state that the AOT provides information such as new reporting procedures, crack length clarification, and nondestructive test methods.
The FAA finds that the AOT would not add any significant meaningful information regarding the requirements of this AD. This AD has discussed reporting procedures and crack length clarification at some length. This AD generally prohibits continued flight with a known crack (unless certain conditions are met, as determined and approved by the FAA or the DGAC). As a result, the AOT provisions are not applicable or necessary. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue.
Request To Cite Latest Service Bulletin Version
Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to cite the latest revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029 (which was cited in AD 96-18-18, at Revision 02, and in the proposed AD, atRevision 05, as the appropriate source of inspection information for Model A300-600 series airplanes). The commenters report that Revisions 06 and 07 (which have not been issued) of the service bulletin will include repair procedures. The commenters suggest that reference in the AD to a service bulletin repair will expedite affected airplanes' return to service and reduce the number of requests for AMOCs. One of the commenters requests that the proposed AD be revised to authorize repairs as terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
The FAA does not agree. As stated previously, the service bulletins do not contain repair instructions. Requiring accomplishment of any action in accordance with an as-yet unpublished service bulletin violates Office of the Federal Register regulations regarding approval of materials that are incorporated by reference. However, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service bulletin (if issued) as an AMOC, under the provisions of paragraph (f)(1) of the AD. If repair instructions are included in a revised service bulletin, the FAA may then consider issuing further rulemaking or an AMOC with general applicability to all affected airplanes. Further, terminating action will not be routinely granted as a part of each AMOC because of the complexity of the procedures required for inspection, measurement, and repair in the subject area. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (c) Requirements
One commenter requests clarification of the requirements of paragraph (c) of the proposed AD. The commenter finds the phrase "reinspect the airplane" nonspecific and potentially misleading, and recommends that the AD clearly identify the area of the airplane that is to be reinspected and the type of reinspection required if discrepancies are found.
The FAA agrees that clarification of the reinspection language would be helpful. Paragraphs (c) and (d) have been revised in this final rule to indicate that, as an option to repair, the FAA may approve reinspection-in accordance with the applicable service bulletin-within specific intervals.
Request To Include Repetitive Inspections in Reporting Requirement
One commenter requests that reports be required following each repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. The added data from the additional reports would increase the flow of valuable data to Airbus for better and more detailed understanding of the structural behavior and actual crack propagation.
It was the FAA's intent in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to require a report following each repetitive inspection, as indicated by the phrase, "after each inspection required by paragraphs (a) and (d) of this AD." Paragraph (b) of this AD merely sets forth the conditions and time interval for repeating the inspections of paragraph (a) of this AD. However, for clarification, paragraph (e) has been revised in this final rule to require a report following any inspection required specifically by paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of this AD.
Request To Revise Reporting Requirement Compliance Time
One commenter requests that the proposed compliance time for submitting reports be extended. The commenter states that Airbus will be contacted for repair information immediately if cracks are found, and finds no advantage of requiring a report within 10 days if no cracks are found. The commenter suggests that a reporting compliance time of 30 days after any inspection would allow operators to process interval paper work and provide reports in the most organized and
qualified manner.
The FAA concurs with the request and has revised paragraph (e) in this final rule to extend the reporting compliance time to 30 days. This compliance time represents an appropriate interval in which reports can be submitted in a timely manner within the fleet and still maintain an adequate level of safety.
Additional Change to Proposed AD
Because the language in Note 2 of the proposed AD is regulatory in nature, that note has been included in paragraph (a) of this final rule.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it is currently developing repair procedures that will address the identified unsafe condition and terminate the repetitive inspections. Once these procedures are developed, approved, and made available, the FAA may consider additional rulemaking.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
Approximately 127 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
The inspection that is currently required by AD 96-18-18, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The new actions will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $38,100, or $300 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figures discussed above are 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 future if 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9744 (61 FR 47808, September 11, 1996), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), amendment 39-13091, to read as follows: