[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12424-12427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04853]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2012-0636; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-037-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R
airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes; and Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes; powered by General
Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 series engines. The NPRM proposed to require
installing a shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an auto-relight
function). The NPRM was prompted by reports of two single-engine
flameout events during inclement weather. This action revises the NPRM
by adding an additional wiring modification to a certain circuit
breaker panel. We are proposing this AD to prevent a long engine
restart sequence after a non-selection of continuous relight by the
crew and a flameout event of both engines, which could result in
reduced controllability of the airplane, especially at low altitude.
Since these actions impose an additional burden over that
[[Page 12425]]
proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the
public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
0636; 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 this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125;
fax (425) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0636;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-037-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the
specified products, which was published in the Federal Register on June
18, 2012 (77 FR 36211). The NPRM proposed to require actions intended
to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above.
Since the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) was issued, we have
determined it is necessary to require an additional wiring modification
of the circuit breaker panel, 105VU, to make it possible to complete
the modification of the shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an
auto-relight function).
Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision
05, dated May 23, 2013; and Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-74-2003,
Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European
Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011-0113, dated June
17, 2011.
Comments
We have considered the following comments received on the NPRM (77
FR 36211, June 18, 2012). The Air Line Pilots Association,
International, supported the NPRM and its compliance time.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) Based on
Safety Record
Based on its safety record, FedEx requested withdrawal of the NPRM
(77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012). FedEx stated that the impact of the NPRM
solely falls on its company; therefore, its exemplary safety record,
superior pilot training, and performance standards should be
significant factors in the FAA's decision regarding the need for the
proposed AD.
FedEx stated that a review of operational events on past and
present airplanes operated by FedEx revealed that there are no known
occurrences of the inclement weather flameouts that are the primary
driver of the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012). In addition, FedEx
stated that it has fully implemented the full authority digital engine
control (FADEC) software upgrades required by AD 2007-21-06, Amendment
39-15224 (72 FR 57848, October 11, 2007), on certain engines in its
fleet. FedEx stated that the latest GE guidance indicates that the
worldwide rate of engine flameouts has decreased significantly in the
last several years and that the rate associated with full authority
digital engine control (FADEC) engine models in particular has shown a
significant decline and is now well below that of the power management
control fleet.
We disagree with FedEx's request. We have received reports of two
single-engine flameout events during inclement weather. We consider
this to be an unsafe condition that could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane, especially at low altitude. Also, not
all affected airplanes have FADEC-controlled engines installed.
We consider a design solution that does not require pilot action to
be a more robust mitigating action to address an unsafe condition. We
have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuing this SNPRM
to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Affected
operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this SNPRM by
submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) Based on
Operational Impact
FedEx also requested withdrawal of the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18,
2012) based on operational impact. FedEx stated that the modifications
required by the proposed AD would affect the interface between the
flight crew and the airplane, and would alter the pilot's degree of
control in the event of an engine event. FedEx stated that the
modification is intended to ensure rapid relight of the engine
following a flameout in the event that the crew does not correctly
follow procedures and manually select the continuous relight function
when entering an inclement
[[Page 12426]]
weather environment. FedEx stated that it is consistently following
proper procedures and has trained crews accordingly.
In addition, FedEx stated that there does not appear to be any
concurrent requirement for the CF6-80C2-powered Model MD-11 airplane in
the FedEx fleet. The current MD-11 flight manual provides for an
optional ice detection system that automatically switches continuous
relight on in the case of icing conditions. FedEx stated that this
system is not required and not desired by the FedEx pilots.
FedEx stated that in the view of the air operation division (AOD)
flight technical operations and fleet technical pilots, a controlled
(as opposed to automated) relight of an engine after flameout has a
greater chance of success. FedEx stated that under the current
configuration, the flightcrews have the capability--with guidance on
recommended in-flight restart airspeeds and altitudes from the quick
reference handbook (QRH)--to ensure that accessory loads have been
reduced and the fuel flow has been managed through throttle movements
prior to a relight attempt. FedEx stated that an automated system could
potentially force a relight attempt under non-nominal conditions, which
could actually delay a successful engine restart. FedEx noted an
example would be a restart attempt when windmilling N2 is below the
recommended restart value in the GE operating instructions.
FedEx stated, therefore, its position is that the steps that have
already been taken, and the controls that are currently in place to
ameliorate the extremely small risk of an engine flameout, which could
result in a loss-of-control event, are adequate to ensure safety under
all flight regimes. FedEx stated that, furthermore, the proposed
modification does not increase the level of safety in real-world terms
to sufficiently justify the relatively high financial and operational
impact to its company.
We disagree with FedEx's request to withdraw this SNPRM. As stated
previously, because we have received reports of two single-engine
flameout events during inclement weather, this condition is unsafe and
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, especially at
low altitude.
In regard to the Model MD-11 airplanes, those airplanes are not
included in the applicability of this SNPRM; each engine installation
is evaluated separately from other airplane models due to their
installation differences. The actions specified in this SNPRM are not
the same as the actions tied to the ice protection system described in
FedEx's comment. Also, not all affected airplanes have FADEC-controlled
engines installed. In addition, as noted previously, we consider a
design solution that does not require pilot action to be a more robust
mitigating action to address an unsafe condition.
Affected operators may request approval of an AMOC under the
provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this SNPRM by submitting data
substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) Based on
Financial Impact
FedEx requested that the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) be
withdrawn based on the financial impact it will have on its company.
FedEx stated that it agrees with the FAA's estimates that the financial
impact would be nearly $1 million to its company in material and labor,
and it has concerns that the cost may in fact continue to increase.
FedEx stated that to date, Airbus has revised the service information
three times, and each of these revisions has increased the material
costs of the modification. FedEx stated that the manpower requirements
and lead time for the required parts have also increased significantly
over the initial release of the service information. FedEx stated that
it has elected to begin performing the modifications immediately upon
release of the initial service information; therefore, it would have to
return multiple times to perform additional work in order to meet the
requirements of the subsequent revisions. FedEx stated that it does not
have a high degree of confidence that the scope of this modification
will not continue to increase and result in further cost and
operational disruption.
We partially agree with the commenter. We disagree to withdraw this
SNPRM based on the financial impact as we have received reports of two
single-engine flameout events during inclement weather, as stated
previously. This condition is unsafe and could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane, especially at low altitude.
We agree, however, with FedEx that the estimated costs of
compliance have increased with each service information revision. We
have revised the Costs of Compliance paragraph of this SNPRM to reflect
the updated costs in the latest service information.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (77 FR
36211, June 18, 2012). As a result, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed AD.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification...................... Up to 98 Up to $18,417........ $26,747 $1,257,109
work[dash]hours x
$85 per hour =
$8,330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 12427]]
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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 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);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. 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.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. Amend Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-0636; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
037-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by April 21, 2014.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R
airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant
F airplanes, and Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes; certificated in
any category; all serial numbers; powered by General Electric (GE)
CF6-80C2 series engines.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 74, Ignition.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by reports of two single-engine flameout
events during inclement weather. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
long engine restart sequence after a non-selection of continuous
relight by the crew and a flameout event of both engines, which
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, especially
at low altitude.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Modification
Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later: Modify the airplane by
installing a shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an auto-
relight function), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-74-6003,
Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and
B4-605R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-
605R Variant F airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-74-2003, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013 (for Model A310-204
and -304 airplanes).
(h) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, and provided
that the additional work in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-
74-6003, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013; or Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 05, including Appendix 1,
dated May 23, 2013; is done, as required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.
(1) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R airplanes, Model
A300 F4-605R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes:
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision 04, dated
January 9, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference.
(2) For Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 04, dated January 9, 2013,
which is not incorporated by reference.
(i) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, 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, or the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). For
a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must
specifically refer to this AD. You are required to assure the
product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(j) Related Information
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011-
0113, dated June 17, 2011, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-0636.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 19, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04853 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P