Proposed Rules. Notice of public meeting and availability of the Framework Document

Agency: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Action: Notice of public meeting and availability of the Framework Document
Citation: FR Doc. 06-2915 · RIN 1904-AB49 · Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0127 · 10 CFR 430, 431

Summary

The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) will hold an informal public meeting to discuss and receive comments on issues it will address in this rulemaking proceeding. The Department is also initiating the data collection process for establishing energy conservation standards for residential electric and gas ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. The Department also encourages written comments on these subjects. In addition, this effort is the result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directive to publish a final rule to determine whether the standards established by EPACT 2005 should be amended no later than October 1, 2009, for dehumidifiers, and no later than January 1, 2010, for commercial clothes washers. To inform stakeholders and facilitate this process, DOE has prepared a Framework Document, a draft of which is available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/.

Dates

The Department will hold a public meeting on Thursday, April 27, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Washington, DC. Any person requesting to speak at the public meeting should submit a request to speak before 4 p.m, Thursday, April 13, 2006. The Department must receive a signed original and an electronic copy of statements to be given at the public meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, April 13, 2006. Written comments are welcome, especially following the public meeting, and should be submitted by Thursday, May 11, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. , established an energy conservation program for major household appliances, which includes residential electric and gas ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, and dishwashers. This program authorizes the Department to establish technologically feasible, economically justified energy-efficiency regulations for certain consumer products for which such regulations would incur substantial national energy saving, and for which both natural market forces and voluntary labeling programs have been and/or are expected to be ineffective in promoting energy efficiency. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA) amended EPCA to add Part C of Title III, 42 U.S.C. 6311 et seq. , which established an energy-conservation program for certain industrial equipment. Amendments to EPCA in the Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) established prescriptive energy conservation standards for dishwashers and cooking products, as well as requirements for determining whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g) and (h)) The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 102-486, included amendments to EPCA that expanded Title III to include certain commercial equipment. The recent Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109-58, updated several existing standards and test procedures, prescribed definitions, standards, and test procedures for certain new consumer products and commercial equipment, and mandated that the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) commence rulemakings to develop test procedures and standards for certain other new consumer products and commercial equipment, including dehumidifiers and commercial clothes washers. The prescriptive standards for dishwashers in EPCA, as amended, require that they be equipped with an option to dry without heat, and EPCA further requires that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1), (4)) On May 14, 1991, DOE issued a final rule establishing the first set of performance standards for dishwashers; the new standards became effective on May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22250. The Department initiated a second standards rulemaking for dishwashers by issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) on November 14, 1994. 59 FR 56423. As a result of the priority-setting process outlined in the July 15, 1996, Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (the “Process Rule”), 61 FR 36974, 10 CFR part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A, DOE suspended the standards rulemaking for dishwashers. The prescriptive standards for gas cooking products in EPCA, as amended, require units with an electrical supply cord not to be equipped with constant burning pilots. EPCA, as amended, also directs DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)) The Department initially analyzed standards for cooking products as part of an eight-product standards rulemaking. It issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on March 4, 1994, proposing performance standards for gas and electric residential cooking products, including microwave ovens. 59 FR 10464. In accordance with the 1996 Process Rule, DOE refined its standards analysis of cooking products. With regard to gas cooking products, DOE focused on the economic justification for eliminating standing pilots. Partially due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating that elimination of standing pilots was economically justified, DOE issued a final rule on September 8, 1998, that covered only electric cooking products, including microwave ovens. 63 FR 48038. The final rule found that no standards were feasible for electric cooking products. The Department never completed its standards rulemaking for gas cooking products. Commercial clothes washers and dehumidifiers are new products covered by the EPACT 2005 legislation. Commercial clothes washers are defined in EPACT 2005 as soft-mount, front-loading or soft-mount, top-loading washers that have a clothes container compartment that is not more than 3.5 cubic feet for horizontal-axis clothes washers and not more than 4.0 cubic feet for vertical-axis clothes washers. (EPACT 2005, section 136(a)(4)) EPACT 2005 also defines commercial clothes washers as products designed for applications in which the occupants of more than one household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common areas, coin laundries, or other commercial applications. ( Id. ) EPACT 2005 established standards for commercial clothes washers, which will become effective on January 1, 2007. (EPACT 2005, section 136(e)) EPACT 2005 also requires that DOE issue a final rule by January 1, 2010, to determine whether these standards should be amended. ( Id. ) In EPACT 2005, dehumidifiers are defined as self-contained, electrically operated, and mechanically encased assemblies consisting of: (1) A refrigerated surface (evaporator) that condenses moisture from the atmosphere; (2) a refrigerating system, including an electric motor; (3) an air-circulating fan; and (4) a means for collecting or disposing of the condensate. (EPACT 2005, section 135(a)(3)) EPACT 2005 established standards for dehumidifiers that will become effective on October 1, 2007. (Section 135(c)(4)) EPACT 2005 also requires that DOE issue a final rule by October 1, 2009, to determine whether these standards should be amended. ( Id. ) If amended standards are justified, EPACT 2005 requires them to become effective by October 1, 2012. ( Id. ) In the event that DOE fails to publish a final rule, EPACT 2005 specifies a new set of amended standards with an effective date of October 1, 2012. ( Id. ) To begin the required rulemaking process, the Department prepared the Framework Document to explain the issues, analyses, and process it is considering for the development of energy efficiency standards for residential electric and gas ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. The focus of the public meeting will be to discuss the analyses and issues contained in various sections of the Framework Document. For each item listed, the Department will make a presentation with discussion to follow. In addition, the Department will also make a brief presentation on the rulemaking process for these products. The Department encourages those who wish to participate in the public meeting to obtain the Framework Document and be prepared to discuss its contents. A copy of the draft Framework Document is available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. However, public meeting participants need not limit their discussions to the topics in the Framework Document. The Department is also interested in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believe would affect energy conservation standards for these products. The Department also welcomes all interested parties, whether or not they participate in the public meeting, to submit in writing by Thursday, May 11, 2006, comments and information on the matters addressed in the Framework Document and on other matters relevant to consideration of standards for residential electric and gas ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. A court reporter will be present to record the minutes of the meeting. There shall be no discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market shares, or other commercial matters regulated by the U.S. antitrust laws. After the public meeting and the expiration of the period for submitting written statements, the Department will begin collecting data, conducting the analyses as discussed at the public meeting, and reviewing the comments received. Anyone who would like to participate in the public meeting, receive meeting materials, or be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information regarding residential electric and gas ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers, should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2006. Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E6-4390 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24018; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-15-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd. Model 750XL Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd. Model 750XL airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the condition of the insulation of the wiring adjacent to the electrical plugs mounted in the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the forward end of the cockpit center console for signs of abrasion and arcing. If you find evidence of abrasion or arcing, this proposed AD would require you to replace the affected wire(s) and secure the wires away from the back shells of the electrical plugs. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for New Zealand. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged wires on the LH and RH sides of the forward end of the cockpit center console, which could result in short-circuiting of the related wiring. This could lead to electrical failure of affected systems and potential fire in the cockpit. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 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 Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd., Hamilton Airport, Private Bag HN 3027, Hamilton, New Zealand; telephone: 011 (64) 7-843-6144; fax: 011 (64) 7-843-6134. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; facsimile: (816) 329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed airworthiness directive (AD). Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-24018; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-15-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for New Zealand, notified the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd. (Pacific Aerospace) Model 750XL airplanes. The CAA reports an incident in which short-circuiting of the wiring in the cockpit center console occurred. Abrasion of the wiring insulation caused by the fasteners of the electrical plug back-shells located in the cockpit center console resulted in the short-circuit. This condition, if not corrected, could result in short-circuiting of the related wiring in the forward end of the cockpit center console. This could lead to electrical failure of affected systems and potential fire in the cockpit. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin No. PACSB/XL/016, Issue 1, Date Issued: September 23, 2005. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting the condition of the insulation of the wiring adjacent to the electrical plugs mounted in the left-hand (LH) and (RH) right-hand sides of the forward end of the cockpit center console for signs of abrasion and arcing; • Replacing the affected wire(s) if any evidence of abrasion or arcing is found; and • Securing the wires away from the back shells of the electrical plugs. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued New Zealand AD Number DCA/750XL/6, Effective Date: December 1, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in New Zealand. These Pacific Aerospace Model 750XL airplanes are manufactured in New Zealand and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we have examined the CAA's findings, evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the condition of the insulation of the wiring adjacent to the electrical plugs mounted in the LH and RH sides of the forward end of the cockpit center console for signs of abrasion and arcing. If any evidence of abrasion or arcing is found, this proposed AD would require you to replace the affected wire(s) and secure the wires away from the back shells of the electrical plugs. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 5 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 4 work hours × $80 per hour = $320 Not applicable $320 $320 × 5 = $1,600 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 28 work hours × $80 per hour = $2,240 $200 $2,440 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information 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 Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located at the street address stated 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, 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 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd. : Docket No. FAA-2006-24018; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-15-AD. Comments Due Date (a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 24, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD affects Model 750XL airplanes, serial numbers 110 through 120, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for New Zealand. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged wires on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the forward end of the cockpit center console, which could result in short-circuiting of the related wiring. This condition could lead to electrical failure of affected systems and potential fire in the cockpit. Compliance (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures (1) Inspect the condition of the insulation of the wiring adjacent to the electrical plugs mounted in the LH and RH sides of the forward end of the cockpit center console for signs of abrasion and arcing Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD Follow Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin No. PACSB / XL / 016, Issue 1, Date Issued: September 23, 2005. (2) If you find any evidence of abrasion or arcing, replace the affected wire(s) and secure the wires away from the back shells of the electrical plugs Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin No. PACSB / XL / 016, Issue 1, Date Issued: September 23, 2005. (3) If you do not find any evidence of abrasion or arcing, secure the wires away from the back shells of the electrical plugs Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin No. PACSB / XL / 016, Issue 1, Date Issued: September 23, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (f) The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; fax: (816) 329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information (g) New Zealand AD No. DCA/750XL/6, Effective Date: December 1, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd., Hamilton Airport, Private Bag HN 3027, Hamilton, New Zealand; telephone: 011 (64) 7-843-6144; facsimile: 011 (64) 7-843-6134. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-24018; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-15-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 20, 2006. Kim Smith, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4386 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22146; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-184-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-7 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-7 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance inspection program to include a CPCP. The original NPRM resulted from a determination that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. This action revises the original NPRM by clarifying certain compliance aspects of the proposed AD that were not adequately defined in the original NPRM. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent structural failure of the airplane due to corrosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Hjelm, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7323; fax (516) 794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2005-22146; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-184-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an airworthiness directive (AD) (the “original NPRM”). The original NPRM applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-7 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48908). The original NPRM proposed to require implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance inspection program to include a CPCP. Actions Since Issuance of the Original NPRM Since the original NPRM was issued, we have determined that we did not properly define certain compliance aspects of the proposed AD. Specifically, we have determined that it is necessary to clarify the following: • The FAA, not Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), may approve the incorporation of the CPCP into the U.S. operator's approved maintenance/inspection program. • The term “the FAA” is defined differently for different operators. • We may approve an alternative method of recordkeeping for the actions that would be required by the proposed AD. • We may approve extension of the repetitive intervals for the actions that would be required by the proposed AD. • If Level 3 corrosion is found, we may impose a schedule for inspecting other affected airplanes in an operator's fleet to ensure timely detection of any Level 3 corrosion and require the operator to adhere to that schedule. • If corrosion findings exceed Level 1 in any area, operators must implement a means approved by the FAA to reduce future findings of corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better. • If an airplane is transferred from one operator to another, the new operator must establish an acceptable schedule for accomplishing the actions that would be required by the proposed AD. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of this supplemental NPRM to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph We have revised this supplemental NPRM to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance This supplemental NPRM would affect about 26 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 148 specific inspections specified in the Manual would take about 48 work hours per airplane, per inspection cycle, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $81,120, or $3,120 per airplane, per inspection cycle. 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2005-22146; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-184-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 21, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-7-1, DHC-7-100, DHC-7-101, DHC-7-102, and DHC-7-103 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from a determination that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airplane due to corrosion. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Manual References (f) The term “the Manual,” as used in this AD, means the de Havilland Inc. Corrosion Prevention and Control Manual, DHC-7 (Dash 7), Product Support Manual (PSM) 1-7-5, dated May 13, 1997. Approval of Information Collection Requirements (g) Information collection requirements in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and are assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Initial Inspections (h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, perform each of the Corrosion Tasks, including re-protection actions, as applicable, specified in Part 3 of the Manual by accomplishing the basic tasks defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Manual, in accordance with the procedures of the Manual. Repetitive Inspections (i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, repeat each of the Corrosion Tasks, and re-protection actions, as applicable, specified in Part 3 of the Manual at intervals not to exceed 3 or 6 years, as specified in Part 3 of the Manual. (j) After accomplishment of each initial Corrosion Task required by paragraph (h) of this AD, the FAA may approve the incorporation into the operator's approved maintenance/inspection program of the Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP) specified in the Manual and this AD; or an equivalent program that is approved by the FAA. In all cases, the initial Corrosion Task for each airplane area must be completed at the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. (1) Any operator complying with paragraph (j) of this AD may use an alternative recordkeeping method to that otherwise required by Section 91.417 (“Maintenance records”) or Section 121.380 (“Maintenance recording requirements”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.417 or 14 CFR 121.380, respectively) for the actions required by this AD, provided that the recordkeeping method is approved by the FAA and is included in a revision to the FAA-approved maintenance/inspection program. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Flight Standards District Office. (2) After the initial accomplishment of the Corrosion Tasks required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any extension of the repetitive intervals specified in the Manual must be approved by the FAA. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Corrective Actions (k) If any corrosion is found during accomplishment of any action required by paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD: Within 30 days after the finding; rework, repair, or replace, as applicable, any subject part, in accordance with Section 4.0 of Part 3 of the Manual. Reporting Requirements and Repetitive Actions for Remainder of Affected Fleet (l) If any Level 3 corrosion, as defined in the Introduction of the Manual, is found during accomplishment of any action required by this AD: Do paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD. (1) Within 10 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, submit a report of the findings to the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; fax (516) 794-5531. The report must follow the format specified in Section 5.0 of Part 3 of the Manual, or be submitted using a Service Difficulty Report, as applicable. (2) Within 10 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, submit a plan to the FAA to identify a schedule for accomplishing the applicable Corrosion Task on the remainder of the airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject to this AD, or data substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion that was found is an isolated case. The FAA may impose a schedule other than proposed in the plan upon finding that a change to the schedule is needed to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely manner. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for operators that are assigned a PMI ( e.g. , part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators ( e.g. , part 91 operators). (3) Within the time schedule approved in accordance with paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, accomplish the applicable Corrosion Task on the remainder of the airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject to this AD. (m) If any Level 2 or 3 corrosion, as defined in the Introduction of the Manual, is found during accomplishment of any action required by this AD: At the applicable time specified in Section 5.0 of Part 3 of the Manual, report these findings to the manufacturer according to Section 5.0 of Part 3 of the Manual. Limiting Future Corrosion Findings (n) If corrosion findings that exceed Level 1 are found in any area during any repeat of any Corrosion Task after the initial accomplishment required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 60 days after such finding, implement a means approved by the FAA to reduce future findings of corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for operators that are assigned a PMI ( e.g. , part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators ( e.g. , part 91 operators). Scheduling Corrosion Tasks for Transferred Airplanes (o) Before any airplane subject to this AD is transferred and placed into service by an operator: Establish a schedule for accomplishing the Corrosion Tasks required by this AD in accordance with paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD, as applicable. (1) For airplanes on which the Corrosion Tasks required by this AD have been accomplished previously at the schedule established by this AD: Perform the first Corrosion Task in each area in accordance with the previous operator's schedule, or in accordance with the new operator's schedule, whichever results in an earlier accomplishment of that Corrosion Task. After the initial accomplishment of each Corrosion Task in each area as required by this paragraph, repeat each Corrosion Task in accordance with the new operator's schedule. (2) For airplanes on which the Corrosion Tasks required by this AD have not been accomplished previously, or have not been accomplished at the schedule established by this AD: The new operator must perform the initial accomplishment of each Corrosion Task in each area before further flight or in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for operators that are assigned a PMI ( e.g. , part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators ( e.g. , part 91 operators). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (q) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-98-03, dated February 27, 1998, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4400 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24199; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-025-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM); performing a one-time hardness test of certain ribs of the left- and right-hand engine pylons, as applicable, which would terminate the AFM limitations; and performing related corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report that certain stainless steel ribs installed in the engine pylon may not have been heat-treated during manufacture, which could result in significantly reduced structural integrity of the pylon. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, which could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24199; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-025-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The DGAC advises that certain stainless steel ribs of the engine pylon may not have been heat-treated during manufacture, which could result in significantly reduced structural integrity of those ribs. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, which could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued All Operators Telex (AOT) A320-54A1015, dated December 14, 2005. The AOT describes procedures for performing a one-time inspection (hardness test) to determine the hardness of stainless steel ribs 7, 8, and 9 of the left- and right-hand engine pylons; and performing corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include installing reinforcing components on ribs 8 and 9, as applicable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The AOT refers to Airbus Repair Instruction 546 12081, Issue B, dated January 3, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the instructions of the AOT. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2006-011 R1, dated January 18, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. French airworthiness directive F-2006-011 R1 also specifies strict adherence to reduced speed limitations for flight in severe turbulence, as described in Airbus A318/319/320/321 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) 4.03.00 P 03. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the Limitations section of the AFM to require strict adherence to reduced speed limitations for flight in severe turbulence and accomplishing the actions specified in the AOT described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between French Airworthiness Directive, Service Information, and This AD.” The proposed AD would also require sending the inspection results to Airbus. Differences Between French Airworthiness Directive, Service Information, and This AD French airworthiness directive F-2006-011 R1 requires, as of the effective date of that AD, that flightcrews strictly adhere to the requirement for operating at reduced speed in case of flight in severe turbulence, as specified in AFM 4.03.00 P03. This AD requires revising the Limitations section of the AFM to include this provision. To prevent immediate grounding of any airplane, this proposed AD would require revising the limitations of the AFM within 10 days after the effective date of this proposed AD to include this requirement of strict adherence to reduced speeds. AOT A320-54A1015 specifies hardness testing of ribs 7, 8, and 9. However, the AOT states that rib 7 is able to sustain certification loads even if not heat-treated and no corrective action is available for rib 7. Since rib 7 does not contribute to the unsafe condition, this proposed AD would not require testing of rib 7. Although the AOT and French airworthiness directive refer to an “inspection” of the spar box ribs, for clarity's sake, this proposed AD would refer to a “hardness test” as described in related Airbus Repair Instruction 546 12081, Issue B. Operators should note that, although the AOT and French airworthiness directive describe procedures for submitting certain findings to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require those actions. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 112 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed hardness test would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $7,280, or $65 per airplane. 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-24199; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-025-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 26, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category; having a manufacturer serial number as identified in Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A320-54A1015, dated December 14, 2005 (referred to after this paragraph as “the AOT”). Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from a report that certain stainless steel ribs installed in the engine pylon may not have been heat-treated during manufacture, which could result in significantly reduced structural integrity of the pylon. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, which could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revise Limitations (f) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section of Airbus A318/319/320/321 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. • “In case of flight in severe turbulence, strictly adhere to reduced speeds as defined in Aircraft Flight Manual 4.03.00 P 03.” Note 1: When a statement identical to that specified in paragraph (f) of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, and the general revisions have been inserted into the AFM, the copy of this AD may be removed from the Limitations section of the AFM unless it has already been removed as specified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD. Hardness Test (g) Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, or before further flight after a hard or overweight landing, whichever occurs first: Perform a one-time hardness test to determine the hardness of ribs 8 and 9 of the left- and right-hand engine pylons, in accordance with the instructions of the AOT. If no discrepant rib is found installed on the airplane, the statement specified in paragraph (f) of this AD may be removed from the Limitations section of the AFM. (1) For airplanes equipped with CFM engines: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. (2) For airplanes equipped with IAE engines: Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD. Note 2: Airbus AOT A320-54A1015, dated December 14, 2005, refers to Airbus Repair Instruction 546 12081, Issue B, dated January 3, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified by the AOT. Corrective Actions (h) Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Perform applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of the AOT. When corrective actions have been applied to any discrepant rib found on the airplane, the statement specified in paragraph (f) of this AD may be removed from the Limitations section of the AFM. (1) For airplanes equipped with CFM engines: Within 14 days after accomplishing the hardness test required by paragraph (g) of this AD. (2) For airplanes equipped with IAE engines: Within 28 days after accomplishing the hardness test required by paragraph (g) of this AD. No Reporting Requirement (i) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (k) French airworthiness directive F-2006-011 R1, dated January 18, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 13, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4409 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2004-19002; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-27-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 Series Airplanes; A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes; and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes, and A300-600 series airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in Gear Rib 5 of the main landing gear (MLG) attachment fittings at the lower flange, and repair, if necessary. That AD also requires modification of Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The original NPRM proposed to reduce the compliance times for all inspections, and require doing the inspections in accordance with new revisions of the service bulletins. The original NPRM resulted from new service information that was issued by the manufacturer and mandated by the French airworthiness authority. This new action revises the original NPRM by proposing new repetitive inspections of certain areas of the attachment fittings that were repaired in accordance with the actions specified in both the existing AD and the original NPRM. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent fatigue cracking of the MLG attachment fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes, contact Jacques Leborgne, Airbus Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, fax (+33) 5 61 93 36 14, for service information identified in this proposed AD. For Model A300 600 series airplanes, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2797; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2004-19002; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-27-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (the original NPRM) for an AD for certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes; and Model A300-600 series airplanes. The original NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2000-05-07, amendment 39-11616 (65 FR 12077, March 8, 2000), which applies to certain Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2004 (69 FR 54063). The original NPRM proposed to reduce the compliance times for all inspections required by AD 2000-05-07, and to require inspections in accordance with new revisions of the service bulletins. The original NPRM resulted from new service information that was issued by the manufacturer and mandated by the French airworthiness authority. We proposed the original NPRM to prevent fatigue cracking of the main landing gear (MLG) attachment fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, we have received reports of cracks on airplanes that were modified in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0235, Revisions 01 through 05; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6088, Revisions 01 through 04. These service bulletins were cited in both the original NPRM and in AD 2000-05-07 as the appropriate sources of service information for modifying Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings at the lower flange. The manufacturer has indicated that the reported cracks may have existed previously, but were probably missed during the installation of the modification because of improper inspection during installation, or because not enough material was removed during the spotfacing operation. The manufacturer has now issued two new service bulletins, described below, which provide procedures for inspecting the modified airplanes to ensure that the inspection area is crack-free. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the service bulletins identified in the following table. New Airbus Service Bulletins Model Airbus service bulletin Date A300-600 A300-57A6101, including Appendix 01 May 20, 2005. A300 B2 and A300 B4 A300-57A0246, including Appendix 01 May 20, 2005. The service bulletins describe procedures for doing repetitive detailed visual inspections for cracks of the bottom flange and the vertical web in the area between the wing rear spar/gear rib 5 attachment, and the forward reaction-rod pickup lug. On the inboard side, this inspection includes inspecting for cracks of the areas around all fasteners, particularly at holes 47 and 54. On the outboard side, this inspection includes inspecting for cracks of the lower flange, the vertical web, and the areas around all fasteners. If any crack is found during this inspection, the service bulletins specify that operators should measure the length of the crack and contact the manufacturer for repair instructions. If no crack is found during the detailed visual inspection, the service bulletins provide procedures for related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative action is doing a high-frequency eddy current inspection for cracks of holes 47 and 54. If any crack is found, the corrective action is to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions. If no crack is found, the corrective action is to install new nuts at holes 47 and 54. The service bulletins also give instructions for reporting all inspection findings, including nil findings, to the manufacturer. The service bulletins specify that the detailed visual inspection is to be repeated at intervals not to exceed 700 flight cycles. If no crack is found during the inspection performed at or above 2,100 flight cycles after modifying Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings at the lower flange, the service bulletins specify that no further action is necessary. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-113 R1, dated July 20, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Support for the Proposed AD One commenter supports the original NPRM as proposed. Request To Extend Compliance Time for Modification One commenter requests that the compliance time for the proposed modification of Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings be extended from 15 months to 30 months. The commenter states that the request to extend the compliance time is justified because the repetitive interval has been shortened to 700 flight cycles. According to the commenter, the manner in which this crack is expected to grow means that it will not reach an un-repairable length during the inspection interval. Therefore, the operator states that the time needed to complete the modification should be extended to 30 months to fit the heavy maintenance schedule for all operators. The commenter considers that the adoption of the proposed compliance time of 15 months would require operators to schedule special visits to do the repair, at additional expense and downtime. We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time from 15 months to 30 months. 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 required modification within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. In addition, because operators' schedules vary substantially, we cannot accommodate every operator's optimal scheduling in each AD. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (p) of this supplemental NPRM, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. In addition, based on further evaluation of French airworthiness directive 2003-318(B), dated August 20, 2003, we have extended the compliance time for the proposed modification of Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings from 15 months to 16 months. This compliance time parallels the compliance time in the French airworthiness directive. Request To Revise Cost Estimate The commenter requests that we revise the cost estimate to between 82 and 100 work hours for the modification of gear rib 5. The commenter states that Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6088, Revision 04, dated December 3, 2003, includes an estimate of 82 work hours to do this modification. The commenter also states that, in its experience, this modification takes approximately 100 work hours, depending on the difficulty in removing the fasteners. The commenter further states that the need to do the modification during special visits will increase the cost to operators. We partially agree with the commenter's request. After further analysis of the service information, we agree that the work hours to do the modification as provided in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6088, Revision 04, are higher than the work hours in the original NPRM. The cost information, below, has been revised to indicate this higher amount. We disagree with the request to revise the work hours to between 82 and 100 work hours. We consider in our cost estimates 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. We have made no further change to this supplemental NPRM regarding this issue. Explanation of Change in Applicability We have revised the applicability to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Explanation of Change to Service Bulletin Reference We have revised the applicability to correct a reference to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57A6087. This service bulletin was inadvertently referred to in the original NPRM as Airbus Service Bulletin A300-75A6087. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Difference Between the Supplemental NPRM and Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57A0246 and A300-57A6101 Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57A0246 and A300-57A6101 specify to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method that we or the DGAC (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair we or the DGAC approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this supplemental NPRM, the “detailed visual inspection” specified in the Airbus service bulletins and in the French airworthiness directives, is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the supplemental NPRM. Explanation of Reporting Requirement This proposed AD also specifies that operators report to the manufacturer any positive findings of cracks during the post-modification inspections. These inspection reports will help determine the extent of the cracking in the affected fleet. Based on the results of these reports, we may determine that further corrective action is warranted. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification (required by AD 2000-05-07) 70 $65 $10,270 $14,820 164 $2,430,480 Pre-modification inspections (new proposed action), per inspection cycle 6 65 None 390 164 $63,960, per inspection cycle. Post-modification inspections (new proposed action), per inspection cycle 2 65 None 130 164 $21,320, per inspection cycle. 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2004-19002; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-27-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 21, 2006. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 2000-05-07, amendment 39-11616. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57A0234, Revision 05, dated February 19, 2002; and Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Varian F airplanes, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57A6087, Revision 04, dated February 19, 2002; except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 11912 or 11932 has been installed; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD was prompted by new service information that was issued by the manufacturer and mandated by the French airworthiness authority. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the main landing gear (MLG) attachment fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2000-05-07 Repetitive Inspections (f) Perform a detailed inspection and a high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracks in Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings at the lower flange, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of any applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD. After April 12, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-05-07), only the service bulletins listed in Table 2 of this AD may be used. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles, until paragraph (h), (i), or (k) of this AD is accomplished. Table 1.—Revision 01 of Service Bulletins Model Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes A300-57-6087 01 March 11, 1998. A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes A300-57-0234 01 March 11, 1998. Table 2.—further revisions of Service Bulletins Model Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes A300-57A6087 02, including Appendix 01 03, including Appendix 01 04, including Appendix 01 June 24, 1999. May 19, 2000. February 19, 2002. A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes A300-57A0234 02, including Appendix 01 June 24, 1999. 03, including Appendix 01 September 2, 1999. 04, including Appendix 01 May 19, 2000. 05, including Appendix 01 February 19, 2002. (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 20,000 or more total flight cycles as of March 9, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-03-06, amendment 39-10298): Inspect within 500 flight cycles after March 9, 1998. (2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 20,000 total flight cycles as of March 9, 1998: Inspect prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,500 flight cycles after March 9, 1998, whichever occurs later. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” Note 2: Accomplishment of the initial detailed and HFEC inspections in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57A0234 or A300-57A6087, both dated August 5, 1997, as applicable, is considered acceptable for compliance with the initial inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD. Repair (g) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. (1) If a crack is detected at one hole only, and the crack does not extend out of the spotface of the hole, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this AD. (2) If a crack is detected at more than one hole, or if any crack at any hole extends out of the spotface of the hole, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated agent). Terminating Modification (h) Prior to the accumulation of 21,000 total flight cycles, or within 2 years after October 20, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-19-26, amendment 39-11313), whichever occurs later: Modify Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings at the lower flange in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin in Table 3 of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 04 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6088, and Revisions 04 and 05 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0235 may be used. Accomplishment of this modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of this AD. Table 3.—Service Bulletins for Terminating Modification Model Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes A300-57-6088 01, including Appendix 01 02 04 February 1, 1999. September 5, 2002. December 3, 2003. A300 B2 and A300 B4 A300-57-0235 01, including Appendix 01 February, 1, 1999. 03 September 5, 2002. 04 March 13, 2003. 05 December 3, 2003. Note 3: Accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD prior to April 12, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-05-07), in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6088 or A300-57-0235, both dated August 5, 1998; as applicable; is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of that paragraph. New Requirements of This AD New Repetitive Inspections (i) For airplanes on which the modification specified in paragraph (h) or (k) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed and an HFEC inspection to detect cracks of the lower flange of Gear Rib 5 of the MLG at holes 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, and 54, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 4 of this AD. Perform the inspections at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 700 flight cycles until the terminating modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD is accomplished. Accomplishment of the inspections per paragraph (i) of this AD, terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD. Table 4.—Service Bulletins for Repetitive Inspections Model Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes A300-57A6087 04, including Appendix 01 February 19, 2002. A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes A300-57A0234 05, including Appendix 01 February 19, 2002. (1) For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes; and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes that have accumulated 18,000 or more total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 700 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. (2) For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203 airplanes that have accumulated less than 18,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 700 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. (3) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes that have accumulated less than 18,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of 14,500 total flight cycles, or within 700 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. (4) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes that have accumulated less than 18,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of 11,600 total flight cycles, or within 700 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Crack Repair (j) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable. (1) If a crack is detected at only one hole, and the crack does not extend out of the spotface of the hole, repair in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57A0234, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated February 19, 2002 (for Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); or A300-57A6087, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated February 19, 2002 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R airplanes); as applicable. (2) If a crack is detected at more than one hole, or if any crack at any hole extends out of the spotface of the hole, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent). Terminating Modification (k) For airplanes on which the terminating modification in paragraph (h) of this AD has not been accomplished before the effective date of this AD: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, modify Gear Rib 5 of the MLG attachment fittings at the lower flange. Except as provided by paragraph letter (l) of this AD, do the modification in accordance with the applicable service bulletin in Table 5 of this AD. This action terminates the repetitive inspections requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of this AD. (1) Prior to the accumulation of 21,000 total flight cycles, or within 2 years after October 20, 1999, whichever is later. (2) Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD. Table 5.—Service Bulletins for Terminating Modification Model Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes A300-57-6088 04 December 3, 2003. A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes A300-57-0235 04 05 March 13, 2003. December 3, 2003. (l) Where the applicable service bulletin in paragraph (k) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for modification instructions; or if there is a previously installed repair at any of the affected fastener holes; or if a crack is found when accomplishing the modification: Prior to further flight, modify in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent). Post-Modification Inspections (m) Within 700 flight cycles after doing the modification in accordance with paragraph (h), (k), or (l) of this AD, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD: Do a detailed and an HFEC inspection for cracks at holes 47 and 54 in the lower flange of Gear Rib 5, and do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57A0246, including Appendix 01, dated May 20, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57A6101, including Appendix 01, dated May 20, 2005; as applicable. Where the applicable service bulletin specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions: Prior to further flight, modify in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent). Repeat the inspection and related investigative and corrective actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 700 flight cycles. If no crack is detected during the repeat inspection performed at or above 2,100 flight cycles after doing the modification in accordance with paragraph (h), (k), or (l) of this AD, then no further inspection is required. Except, at least one inspection is required after the accumulation of 2,100 flight cycles after installing the modification in accordance with paragraph (h) or (k) of this AD. Actions Accomplished Per Previous Issues of the Service Bulletins (n) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD per the service bulletins listed in Table 6 of this AD, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD. Table 6.—Previous Issues of Service Bulletins Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300-57-0235 02, including Appendix 01 September 27, 1999. 03 September 5, 2002. A300-57-6088 02 September 5, 2000. 03 March 13, 2003. Reporting (o)(1) Although Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57A0234, A300-57-0235, A300-57A6087, A300-57-6088, A300-57A0246, and A300-57A6101, specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement, except as provided by paragraph (o)(2) of this AD. (2) Where Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57A0246 and A300-57A6101, both dated May 20, 2005, specify to submit a report of positive and negative findings of the post-modification inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, submit a report only of the positive findings of post-modification inspections to Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. (3) AMOCs, approved previously per AD 2000-05-07, are approved as AMOCs with this AD. Related Information (q) French airworthiness directives 2003-318(B), dated August 20, 2003; and F-2005-113 R1, dated July 20, 2005; also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4402 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22524; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-135-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive (AD) that would have applied to certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes, and A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required inspecting to determine if certain emergency escape slides/slide rafts (referred to as slide/rafts) are installed in certain crew/passenger doors; and, if so, performing a one-time inspection to determine if the electrical harnesses of the slide/rafts are properly routed, and rerouting the harnesses if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from a report that a slide/raft failed to deploy properly during a deployment test. This action revises the original NPRM by expanding the applicability of the proposed AD. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct improper routing of the electrical harnesses of certain slide/rafts, which could prevent proper deployment of the slide/rafts and delay evacuation of passengers and flightcrew during an emergency. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2005-22524; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-135-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an airworthiness directive (AD) (the “original NPRM”). The original NPRM applies to certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes, and A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56389). The original NPRM proposed to require inspecting to determine if certain emergency escape slides/slide rafts (referred to as slide/rafts) are installed in certain crew/passenger doors; and, if so, performing a one-time inspection to determine if the electrical harnesses of the slide/rafts are properly routed, and rerouting the harnesses if necessary. Since the original NPRM was issued, we have determined that the applicability of the proposed AD was not properly written. As written, the applicability of the proposed AD would not have ensured that the unsafe condition would not recur if a slide/raft was ever replaced or reinstalled on any subject airplane. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Update Service Information One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that we update the references to the applicable service information cited in the original NPRM. The commenter states that later revisions of two AOTs are available. We agree with this request. We have reviewed Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-25A3272, Revision 02, and AOT A340-25A4259, Revision 02, both dated June 1, 2005. Both AOTs were revised to add a reference to French airworthiness directive F-2005-077, dated May 11, 2005, and to remove the reference to door 3 type A from paragraph 4.1. We have determined that these revisions of the AOTs should be referenced in the AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (c), (f)(1)(ii), and (f)(2)(ii) of the AD to reflect the revised AOTs, and revised paragraph (g) of the AD to give credit for using Revision 01 of those AOTs. Request To Clarify Applicability The same commenter requests that we clarify the applicability of the original NPRM. The commenter states that airplanes delivered after March 17, 2005, which is the date of issuance of the original issues of the AOTs, are not subject to the inspection required by paragraph (f) of the AD, provided no slide/raft has been replaced on any such airplane. The commenter states that Revision 02 of all three AOTs, all dated June 1, 2005, specifies this exception. We agree that the AOTs specify the exception noted by the commenter, and that an airplane supplied by the manufacturer after March 17, 2005, may not be subject to the unsafe condition. However, this will not ensure that the unsafe condition won't recur should an operator receive such an airplane and replace or reinstall any subject slide/raft on that airplane. Therefore, we have not revised the applicability of the original NPRM to reflect the specified exception; rather, this supplemental NPRM would require doing the actions specified in the AOTs. As operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by the supplemental NPRM, unless an alternative method of compliance is approved, this requirement would ensure that the actions specified in the AOTs would be accomplished on all subject airplanes. We have determined that it is necessary to expand the applicability of the original NPRM to ensure that the unsafe condition does not recur on any subject airplane; therefore, we have revised the applicability of the supplemental NPRM to cover all subject airplanes, certificated in any category. Further, in this supplemental NPRM, we have included a new paragraph (h) that would require performing any replacement or reinstallation of any subject slide/raft on any subject airplane in accordance with this AD. Accordingly, we have re-identified existing paragraphs (h) and (i) of the original NPRM as paragraphs (i) and (j) of this supplemental NPRM. Request To Expand Applicability The same commenter requests that we add two additional models of airplanes, Model A330-302 and A330-303, to the applicability of the original NPRM. The commenter gave no reason for this request. We agree with this request. Model A330-302 and A330-303 airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition as all other airplanes identified in the original NPRM. We have revised the applicability of the supplemental NPRM accordingly. Request To Expand Scope of NPRM One commenter states that the one-time inspection specified in the original NPRM will not be effective in preventing future occurrences of misrouting of the slide/raft wiring harness. The commenter states it added a procedure to its aircraft maintenance program for inspecting the slide/raft wiring harness routing during every slide/raft assembly installation, and recommends that the FAA take steps to ensure that all affected operators establish maintenance procedures similar to those of the commenter. We infer that the commenter holds that the NPRM is not sufficient in scope and should be expanded. We recognize the commenter's concern. The manufacturer is working on revisions to the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) to clarify the differences between the routing of the wiring harnesses on the left- and right-hand sides of the airplane, which will accomplish a function similar to that of the commenter's procedures. When the AMM has been revised, we may consider further rulemaking. However, we do not wish to delay correcting the unsafe condition until the manufacturer issues new service information that revises the AMM. Therefore, we have not changed the AD to reflect this issue. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance This supplemental NPRM would affect about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions would take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $5,265 or $195 per airplane. 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2005-22524; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-135-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 21, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from a report that an emergency escape slide/slide raft (referred to hereafter as a “slide/raft”) failed to deploy properly during a deployment test. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improper routing of the electrical harnesses of certain slide/rafts, which could prevent proper deployment of the slide/raft and delay evacuation of passengers and flightcrew during an emergency. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections and Corrective Actions (f) Within 1,700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Inspect certain crew/passenger doors as required by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2), as applicable, of this AD to determine if slide/rafts having certain part numbers (P/N) are installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the presence of the subject slide/rafts can be conclusively determined from that review. (1) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes: On both right and left hand sides, inspect to determine the P/N of the slide/rafts of crew/passenger doors 1 and 4, and—only if it is a type 1 door—crew/passenger door 3. If crew/passenger door 3 is not a type 1 door, it is not subject to any requirement of this AD. (i) If a slide/raft does not have P/N 7A1508-( ) or 7A1509-( ), no further action is required for that slide/raft by this paragraph. (ii) If a slide/raft has P/N 7A1508-( ) or 7A1509-( ), before further flight, perform a general visual inspection of the electrical harness of the slide/raft and reroute the harness, as applicable, in accordance with paragraphs 4.2 through 4.2.4 of Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-25A3272, Revision 02, or Airbus AOT A340-25A4259, Revision 02; both dated June 1, 2005; as applicable. (2) For Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes: On both right and left hand sides, inspect to determine the P/N of the slide/rafts of crew/passenger doors 1 and 4. (i) If a slide/raft does not have P/N 7A1508-( ), no further action is required for that slide/raft by this paragraph. (ii) If a slide/raft has P/N 7A1508-( ), before further flight, perform a general visual inspection of the electrical harness of that slide/raft and reroute the harness, as applicable, in accordance with paragraphs 4.2 through 4.2.4 of Airbus AOT A340-25A5091, Revision 02, dated June 1, 2005. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issues of AOTs (g) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Airbus AOTs listed in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD. Table 1.—Previous Issues of AOTs Airbus AOT Revision level Date A330-25A3272 1 Original March 17, 2005. A330-25A3272-2005 1 01 March 24, 2005. A340-25A4259 2 Original March 17, 2005. A340-25A4259-2005 2 01 March 24, 2005. A340-25A5091 3 Original March 17, 2005. A340-25A5091 3 01 March 24, 2005. 1 For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes. 2 For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. 3 For Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. Parts Installation (h) After the effective date of this AD, no person may install any slide/raft having P/N 7A1508-( ) or 7A1509-( ) on any airplane unless the electrical harness of that slide/raft is determined to be properly routed in accordance with the requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (j) French airworthiness directive F-2005-077, dated May 11, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4408 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24204; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-178-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection to detect corrosion of the flap structure and machined ribs, corrective actions if necessary, and reprotection of the rib boss bores. This proposed AD would require a records review of the results of that inspection, and an additional inspection and related investigative/corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD results from the development of an improved inspection for corrosion in the subject area. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the flap structure and machined ribs, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-24204; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-178-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On February 5, 2002, we issued AD 2002-03-07, amendment 39-12648 (67 FR 6852, February 14, 2002), for certain BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection to detect corrosion of the flap structure and machined ribs, corrective actions if necessary, and reprotection of the rib boss bores. That AD resulted from corrosion at various locations within the flap structure and machined ribs. We issued that AD to detect and correct corrosion in the flap structure and machined ribs, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Relevant Service Information AD 2002-03-07 cited BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, dated May 15, 2001. Revision 2, dated March 18, 2004, of this service bulletin provides procedures for additional inspection for corrosion and reprotection of the rib boss bores and faces. If the corrosion extended into the boss bores, the service bulletin specifies a “flaps-off” inspection; otherwise the service bulletin specifies a “flaps-on” inspection. Corrective actions for corrosion include repairing (blending), replacing corroded components with new components, and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions, depending on the extent and location of the corrosion. For airplanes with no corrosion found during the initial inspection, no further work is necessary. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority of the United Kingdom, mandated the service information and issued British airworthiness directive G-2005-0018, dated July 20, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in the United Kingdom and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-03-07. This proposed AD would require a review of the airplane records for the results, if any, of the inspection required by AD 2002-03-07. For airplanes not already inspected in accordance with AD 2002-03-07, this proposed AD would require an initial inspection. If the results of the initial inspection required by this proposed AD or AD 2002-03-07 reveal corrosion, this proposed AD would require the related investigative/corrective actions specified in Revision 2 of the service bulletin, described previously, except as discussed below. Differences Between the Proposed Rule and the British Airworthiness Directive/Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method that we or the CAA (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair we or the CAA approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. The British airworthiness directive specifies that all Model BAe 146 and Avro RJ series airplanes are affected. But this proposed AD, as well as Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, Revision 2, would exclude those airplanes modified by BAE Systems Modification HCM01694F. The CAA is aware of this discrepancy and agreed with the intent to so limit the applicability. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The inspection specified in the service bulletin is referred to as a “general visual inspection” in this proposed AD. Note 1 of this proposed AD defines this type of inspection. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. This proposed AD would affect about 35 airplanes of U.S. registry. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Records review 1 $65 None $65 Flaps-on inspection, if required 4 65 None 260 Flaps-off inspection, if required 40 65 None 2,600 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-12648 (67 FR 6852, February 14, 2002) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace Regional Aircraft): Docket No. FAA-2006-24204; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-178-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 26, 2006. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 2002-03-07. Applicability (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes, and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category; except those modified by BAE Systems Modification HCM01694F. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from the development of an improved inspection for corrosion in the subject area. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the flap structure and machined ribs, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Records Review (f) For airplanes on which the initial inspection required by AD 2002-03-07 was done before the effective date of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, review the airplane maintenance records to identify the results of the inspection. Inspection: Airplanes Not Previously Inspected (g) For airplanes that were not inspected in accordance with AD 2002-03-07 before the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 72 total months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a general visual “flaps off” inspection to detect corrosion of the flap structure and machined ribs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2004. If no corrosion is found: Before further flight, reprotect the rib boss bores and faces, in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2004. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Follow-on Actions: No Corrosion Found (h) If it is positively determined from the records review required by paragraph (f) of this AD that no corrosion was found during the initial inspection, or if no corrosion was found during the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: No further work is required by this AD. Follow-on Actions: Corrosion Found (i) If it is determined during the records review required by paragraph (f) of this AD that any corrosion was found during the initial inspection, or if it cannot be positively determined from the records review required by paragraph (f) of this AD that no corrosion was found during the initial inspection, or if any corrosion was found during the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 36 months after the initial inspection or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, but not sooner than 24 months after the initial inspection, perform a general visual inspection of the flap structure and machined ribs to detect corrosion, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2), as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2004. (1) If the corrosion extended into the boss bores, or if it cannot be positively determined from the records review specified in paragraph (f) of this AD that corrosion did not extend into the boss bores, do a flaps-off inspection. (2) If the corrosion did not extend into the boss bores, do a flaps-on inspection. Corrective Actions (j) If any corrosion is found during any inspection required by this AD: Repair before further flight in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2004, except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications (k) If any corrosion is detected and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2004, specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions: Repair before further flight, using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority (or its delegated agent). (l) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Credit (m) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-066, dated May 15, 2001, or Revision 1, dated September 20, 2002, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (o) British airworthiness directive G-2005-0018, dated July 20, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4411 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24200; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-012-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4 Series Airplanes; Model A300 B4-600 Series Airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes; Model A310-200 Series Airplanes; and Model A310-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 C4-600 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection to detect damage of the pump diffuser guide slots (bayonet) of the center tank fuel pumps, the pump diffuser housings, and the pump canisters; repetitive inspections to detect damage of the fuel pumps and the fuel pump canisters; and corrective action, if necessary. This proposed AD would add, for new airplanes, repetitive inspections of the pump bodies for cracking, damage, and missing and broken fasteners; repetitive inspections of the fuel pump canisters for a cracked flange web; and corrective actions if necessary. For all airplanes, this proposed AD would also add replacement of the fuel pump canisters with new reinforced fuel pump canisters, which ends the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damage of the center tank fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters, which could result in separation of a pump from its electrical motor housing, loss of flame trap capability, and a possible fuel ignition source in the center fuel tank. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-24200; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-012-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On April 6, 2004, we issued AD 2004-08-03, amendment 39-13572 (69 FR 19756, April 14, 2004), for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 C4-600 series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection to detect damage of the pump diffuser guide slots (bayonet) of the center tank fuel pumps, the pump diffuser housings, and the pump canisters; repetitive inspections to detect damage of the fuel pumps and the fuel pump canisters; and corrective action, if necessary. That AD resulted from broken fuel tank pump canisters found on Model A300 B4-600 and A300 C4-600 series airplanes. We issued that AD to detect and correct damage of the center tank fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters, which could result in separation of a pump from its electrical motor housing, loss of flame trap capability, and a possible fuel ignition source in the center fuel tank. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( i.e. , type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Since we issued AD 2004-08-03, the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has notified us that the unsafe condition addressed in that existing AD may also exist on Airbus Model A300 B4 series airplanes and Model A310-300 series airplanes. Damage to the center tank fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters, if not detected and corrected, could result in separation of a pump from its electrical motor housing, loss of flame trap capability, and a possible fuel ignition source in the center fuel tank. Additionally, in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (68 FR 70473, December 18, 2003) for AD 2004-08-03, we specified that the actions required by AD 2004-08-03 were considered “interim action” and that the manufacturer was developing a modification to address the unsafe condition. We indicated that we may consider further rulemaking action once the modification was developed, approved, and available. The DGAC has notified us that the manufacturer now has developed such a modification. We have determined that further rulemaking action is indeed necessary; this NPRM follows from that determination. Other Related Rulemaking On January 26, 2006, we issued an NPRM (71 FR 5620, February 2, 2006), Docket No. FAA-2006-23760, that proposes to supersede existing AD 2004-23-08, amendment 39-13863 (69 FR 65528, November 15, 2004). That NPRM is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R and A300 F4-600R series airplanes. That NPRM proposes to continue to require repetitive inspections for damage of the center tank fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters and replacement of any damaged parts, and to mandate modification of the canisters of the center tank fuel pumps, which terminates the repetitive inspections. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also proposes to require a one-time inspection of the attachment bolts of the outlet flange of the canisters of the center tank fuel pumps for bolts that are too short and do not protrude through the nut, and replacement of the bolts if necessary. We are proposing that NPRM to prevent damage to the fuel pump and fuel pump canister, which could result in loss of flame trap capability and could provide a fuel ignition source in the center fuel tank, on certain Model A300 B4-600R and A300 F4-600R series airplanes equipped with a fuel trim tank system. This proposed AD addresses the same unsafe condition on Model A300 B4-600R and A300 F4-600R series airplanes not equipped with a fuel trim tank system. That NPRM does not affect the requirements of this proposed AD. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the following service information: Airbus airplanes Airbus service information Date Model A300 B4 series airplanes Service Bulletin A300-28-0084 June 28, 2005. Service Bulletin A300-28-0085 July 18, 2005. Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes All Operators Telex (AOT) A300-600-28A6075, Revision 01 October 24, 2005. Service Bulletin A300-28-6089, Revision 01 November 28, 2005. Model A310-200 and -300 series airplanes Service Bulletin A310-28-2159 June 28, 2005. Service Bulletin A310-28-2160 July 18, 2005. Airbus Service Bulletins A300-28-0084 and A310-28-2159 describe doing the following procedures: • A visual inspection in the area between the impeller assembly and inducer assembly of the fuel booster pumps for cracks and missing or damaged fasteners. • A visual inspection in the area of the guide slots (bayonet slots) of the fuel booster pumps for signs of damage. • If any crack or damage to a fuel booster pump is found or if any fastener is missing or damaged, replacement of the pump with a new pump. • A high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the flange webs inside the fuel pump canisters for cracks. • If any crack is found in the flange webs of the fuel pump canisters, replacement of the fuel pump canister with a new fuel pump canister, or with a new reinforced fuel pump canister in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0085 or A310-28-2160, as applicable. Airbus AOT A300-600-28A6075, Revision 01, describes doing the following procedures: • A one-time detailed visual inspection to detect cracks, fretting, and other damage of the lower part of the pump diffuser guide slots (bayonet) of the center tank fuel pumps and the bottom of the pump diffuser housings; and replacement of any damaged pump and its corresponding fuel pump canister with new parts. • A one-time detailed inspection to detect cracks of the center tank fuel pump canisters, and replacement of any cracked fuel pump canister and its corresponding fuel pump with new parts. • Repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect damage of the fuel pumps, and replacement of any damaged pump with a new part. • Repetitive nondestructive test (NDT) inspections to detect damage to the fuel pump canisters, and replacement of any damaged canister with a new part. If a canister is replaced with a new part, the next inspection interval would be extended to 7,000 flight cycles, and thereafter repeated at intervals of 3,000 flight cycles. (The original issue of AOT A300-600-28A6075, dated February 20, 2003, and AD 2004-08-03 specify a repetitive inspection interval of 1,500 flight cycles.) Replacement of a canister ends the repetitive inspections of the fuel pumps. • A report of inspection findings. Airbus AOT A300-600-28A6075 refers to Airbus Alert Service Bulletin A300-28A6061, Revision 04, dated August 1, 2002, and the A300-600 Nondestructive Testing Manual (NTM) 57-10-14 as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the NDT inspections. Airbus Service Bulletins A300-28-0085, A300-28-6089, and A310-28-2160 describe procedures for replacing the fuel pump canisters with new reinforced fuel pump canisters. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-199, dated December 7, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2004-08-03 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD and extend the repetitive interval for certain eddy current inspections. This proposed AD would also require, for certain airplanes, repetitive detailed inspections of the pump bodies for cracking, damage, and missing and broken fasteners; repetitive HFEC inspections of the fuel pump canisters for a cracked flange web; and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require, for all airplanes, replacement of the fuel pump canisters with new reinforced canisters. This proposed AD also contains differences with the French airworthiness directive F-2005-199, as discussed under “Differences Between the NPRM and French Airworthiness Directive.” Differences Between the NPRM and French Airworthiness Directive The applicability of French airworthiness directive F-2005-199 excludes the following airplanes: • Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes and Model A300 C4-600 series airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 546, 553, 618, and 623, on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6082 has been accomplished in service. • Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes and Model A300 C4-600 series airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6089 has been accomplished in service. • Model A300 series airplanes on which Airbus A300-28-0085 has been accomplished in service. • Model A310 series airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2160 has been accomplished in service. However, we have not excluded those airplanes in the applicability of this NPRM; rather, this NPRM includes a requirement to accomplish the actions specified in those service bulletins. This requirement would ensure that the actions specified in the service bulletins and required by this NPRM are accomplished on all affected airplanes. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this NPRM unless an alternative method of compliance is approved. This difference has been coordinated with the DGAC. The applicability of French airworthiness directive F-2005-199 also excludes all Airbus Model A300B2-100, -200, and -300 airplanes, and includes all Airbus A300-600ST airplanes except those on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-2160 has been accomplished in service. However, we have not referenced any of these airplanes in the applicability of this NPRM, since these airplanes are not type certificated in the U.S. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The “detailed visual inspection” specified in French airworthiness directive F-2005-199 and in the referenced service information is referred to as a “detailed inspection” in this NPRM. We have updated the definition of a “detailed inspection” in Note 1 of this NPRM. Changes to Existing AD This NPRM would retain all requirements of AD 2004-08-03. Since AD 2004-08-03 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this NPRM, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2004-08-03 Corresponding requirement in this NPRM Paragraph (a) Paragraph (f) Paragraph (b) Paragraph (g) Paragraph (c) Paragraph (h) Paragraph (d) Paragraph (i) We have revised the applicability of the NPRM to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Note 2 of AD 2004-08-03 incorrectly references paragraph (b)(2) of that AD. We have revised this NPRM to reference paragraphs (g) and (h). We have increased the repetitive interval to 3,000 flight cycles for the eddy current inspections in paragraph (g) and (h) of this NPRM to correspond with French airworthiness directive F-2005-199. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 74 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Airbus model Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost A300 B4-600 series airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes Detailed inspection (required by AD 2004-08-03) 2 None $160 2 $320. Eddy current inspection (required by AD 2004-08-03) 5 None $400, per inspection cycle 2 $800, per inspection cycle. Replacements (new proposed action) 7 $70 $630 2 $1,260. A300 B4 series airplanes Repetitive inspections (new proposed action) 2 None $160, per inspection cycle 16 $2,560, per inspection cycle. Replacements (new proposed action) 10 $80 $880 16 $14,080. A310-200 and -300 series airplanes Repetitive inspections (new proposed action) 2 None $160, per inspection cycle 56 $8,960, per inspection cycle. Replacements (new proposed action) 10 $50 $850 56 $47,600. 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13572 (69 FR 19756, April 14, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-24200; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-012-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 26, 2006. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-08-03. Applicability (c) This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category. (1) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; except those airplanes equipped with a fuel trim tank system (that have incorporated Airbus Modification 4801). (2) All Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes; and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the center tank fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters, which could result in separation of a pump from its electrical motor housing, loss of flame trap capability, and a possible fuel ignition source in the center fuel tank. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004-08-03 Detailed Inspections (f) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Within 15 days after May 19, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-08-03) (unless accomplished previously), perform detailed inspections as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, in accordance with paragraph 4.2 of Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A300-600-28A6075, dated February 20, 2003; or Revision 01, dated October 24, 2005. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” (1) Inspect the lower part of the pump diffuser guide slots (bayonet) of the center tank fuel pumps and the bottom of the pump diffuser housings to detect cracks, fretting, and other damage. Replace any damaged pump and the corresponding fuel pump canister with new parts before further flight in accordance with the AOT. (2) Inspect the center tank fuel pump canisters to detect cracks. Replace any cracked fuel pump canister and the corresponding fuel pump with new parts before further flight in accordance with the AOT. Repetitive Inspections With New Repetitive Intervals (g) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Within 600 flight hours after May 19, 2004, perform a detailed inspection of the fuel pumps, and an eddy current inspection of the fuel pump canisters, to detect damage. Do the inspections in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of Airbus AOT A300-600-28A6075, dated February 20, 2003; or Revision 01, dated October 24, 2005. Replace any damaged part with a new part before further flight in accordance with the AOT. Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. (h) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Within 7,000 flight cycles after canister replacement as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, perform an eddy current inspection of the fuel pump canisters to detect damage in accordance with Airbus AOT A300-600-28A6075, dated February 20, 2003; or Revision 01, dated October 24, 2005. Replace any damaged part with a new part before further flight in accordance with the AOT. Thereafter repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. Note 2: Airbus AOT A300-600-28A6075 refers to Airbus Alert Service Bulletin A300-28A6061, Revision 04, dated August 1, 2002, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the eddy current inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Reporting Requirement (i) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, submit a report of findings (both positive and negative) of each inspection required by this AD, in accordance with Airbus AOT A300-600-28A6075, dated February 20, 2003. Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. (1) For any inspection accomplished after May 19, 2004: Submit the report within 10 days after performing that inspection. (2) For any inspection accomplished before May 19, 2004: Submit the report within 10 days after May 19, 2004. Requirements of This AD Repetitive Inspections for New Airplanes (j) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes; and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the pump bodies for cracking, damage, and missing and broken fasteners; and do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the fuel pump canisters for a cracked flange web, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0084, dated June 28, 2005 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2159, dated June 28, 2005 (for Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes), as applicable. If any crack or damage to the pump bodies is found or any missing or broken fastener is found, before further flight, replace the fuel pump with a new fuel pump in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the detailed inspection of the pump bodies thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. If no cracked flange web is found, repeat the HFEC inspection of the fuel pump canisters thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. Accomplishing the replacements specified in paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections. (1) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes: Inspect before the airplane has accumulated 19,600 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. (2) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes: Inspect before the airplane has accumulated 27,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. Corrective Action for Cracked Flange Web (k) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203; Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes; and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes: If any flange web is found cracked during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, before further flight after the inspection, replace the fuel pump canister with a new fuel pump canister in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0084, dated June 28, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2159, dated June 28, 2005, as applicable. Repeat the HFEC inspection at the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, until the replacements specified in paragraph (l) of this AD are accomplished. (1) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes: Inspect within 19,600 flight cycles after replacing the fuel pump canisters and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. (2) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes: Inspect within 27,000 flight cycles after replacing the fuel pump canisters and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. Terminating Action: Replacement of Fuel Pump Canisters (l) For all airplanes: Within 66 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the fuel pump canisters with new reinforced fuel pump canisters, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0085, dated July 18, 2005 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes); Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6089, Revision 01, dated November 28, 2005 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2160, dated July 18, 2005 (for Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes), as applicable. Replacement of a fuel pump canister terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (j) and (k), as applicable, for that fuel pump canister only. Credit for Previous Service Bulletin (m) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6089, dated July 18, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (o) French airworthiness directive F-2005-199, dated December 7, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4407 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2004-19566; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-72-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 Series Airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier supplemental NPRM for an airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus airplanes as listed above. The first supplemental NPRM would have required repetitively inspecting for cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of the inner flap on the wings, and performing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from reports of cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of the inner flap. This action revises the first supplemental NPRM by requiring eventual replacement of nose rib 7 with a new, improved rib, which would terminate the proposed inspections. This action also removes from the applicability airplanes on which the improved nose rib 7 was installed during production. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent cracking in the web of nose rib 7, which could result in rupture of the attachment fitting between the inner flap and flap track 2, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flap. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2004-19566; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-72-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an airworthiness directive (AD) (the “first supplemental NPRM”). The first supplemental NPRM applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). The first supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2005 (70 FR 54486). The first supplemental NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting for cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of the inner flap on the wings, and performing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. The first supplemental NPRM specified that, if any cracking is found, nose rib 7 must be replaced with a reinforced rib having increased flange thickness and new shape. However, subsequent flight testing of this reinforced rib revealed that further reinforcement of nose rib 7 was necessary. Relevant Service Information Since the preparation of the first supplemental NPRM, Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A300-57-0245 (for Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes) and A300-57-6100 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes), both Revision 01, dated March 9, 2006. These service bulletins state that they supersede Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0242 and A300-57-6097, respectively, both dated December 18, 2003. (The first supplemental NPRM referred to Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0242 and A300-57-6097 as the acceptable source of service information for the proposed related investigative and corrective actions.) Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0245 and A300-57-6100 describe procedures for replacing nose rib 7 with a new, improved rib. This is the corrective action if any crack is found in the vertical stiffeners or the horizontal flanges of nose rib 7. But, in addition, the service bulletin recommends eventual replacement of nose rib 7 on all airplanes, regardless of whether cracking is found. Among other things, the new, improved rib has an increased web thickness, thicker vertical stiffeners in a modified position, radius instead of chamfer on hinge lug edges, and thicker lug bases. The procedures for the replacement include doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The related investigative actions include an inspection for any damage of the bearing assembly of the lug of nose rib 7, and high-frequency eddy current inspections or detailed visual inspections, as applicable, to detect cracking in fastener holes and in the upper radii of the skin flanges of the ribs and front spar. If any damage or cracking is found during these inspections, the service bulletins specify contacting Airbus. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-198, dated December 7, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. The effectivity of French airworthiness directive F-2005-198 excludes airplanes on which the new service information or the related production modifications have been done. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this supplemental NPRM, the “detailed visual inspection”' specified in Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0245 and A300-57-6100 is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in this supplemental NPRM. Differences Among the Supplemental NPRM, French Airworthiness Directive, and Relevant Service Information Unlike the procedures described in the service information and French airworthiness directive, this supplemental NPRM would not permit further flight if any crack is detected in nose rib 7 of the inner flap. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, the nose rib must be replaced and all applicable related investigative/corrective actions must be done before further flight after the crack finding. The service information specifies that you may contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this supplemental NPRM would require you to repair those conditions using a method that we or the DGAC (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair that we or the DGAC approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. The applicability of the French airworthiness directive excludes airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0245 or A300-57-6100 was accomplished in service. However, we have not excluded those airplanes in the applicability of this supplemental NPRM; rather, this supplemental NPRM includes a requirement to accomplish the actions specified in the applicable service bulletin. This requirement would ensure that the actions specified in the applicable service bulletin and that would be required by this proposed AD are accomplished on all affected airplanes. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this proposed AD unless an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is approved. Also, the service information and the French airworthiness directive specify reporting inspection findings to Airbus. This supplemental NPRM would not require that action. These differences have been coordinated with the DGAC. Explanation of Removal of Interim Action In the first supplemental NPRM, we explain that we considered the action interim because the manufacturer was currently developing a modification that would address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. As we explained previously, since we prepared the first supplemental NPRM, Airbus has developed a new, improved nose rib 7. Installing the new, improved rib is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Thus, this second supplemental NPRM is no longer considered interim action. Clarification of AMOC Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental NPRM, at an average labor rate of $65 per hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection, per inspection cycle 3 None $195 143 $27,885, per inspection cycle. Rib replacement 10 $10,980 11,630 143 $1,663,090. 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 have 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 that the 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); 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2004-19566; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-72-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 21, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, B4-203, B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; certificated in any category; except those on which Airbus Modification 13031 or 19575 was accomplished in production. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of the inner flap. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the web of nose rib 7, which could result in rupture of the attachment fitting between the inner flap and flap track 2, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flap. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections (f) Do a detailed inspection, using a borescope or endoscope, for cracking of the vertical stiffeners, and of the horizontal flanges between the stiffeners, of nose rib 7 of the inner flap of the left- and right-hand wings; and do an eddy current inspection to detect cracking in the horizontal flanges of the attachment lug root of nose rib 7 of the inner flap of the left- and right-hand wings; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0240 or A300-57-6095, both Revision 01, both dated December 2, 2004, as applicable. Do the initial inspections at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” (1) For airplanes on which nose rib 7 has not been replaced in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0242 or A300-57-6097, both dated December 18, 2003: Do the initial inspections at the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD. (i) For airplanes with 18,599 or fewer total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. (ii) For airplanes with 18,600 or more total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. (2) For airplanes on which nose rib 7 has been replaced in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0242 or A300-57-6097, both dated December 18, 2003: Do the initial inspection within 5,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the replacement, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. No Crack Found: Repetitive Inspections (g) If no crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles, until the terminating action in paragraph (i) of this AD is completed. Crack Found: Related Investigative/Corrective Actions (h) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD: Before further flight, replace nose rib 7 with a new, improved rib and do all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0245, Revision 01, or A300-57-6100, Revision 01, both dated March 9, 2006, as applicable, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. This terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the modified flaps only. Terminating Action (i) Within 5,000 flight cycles or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first: Replace nose rib 7 with a new, improved rib and do all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0245, Revision 01, or A300-57-6100, Revision 01, both dated March 9, 2006, as applicable, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. This terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Repairing Per the FAA or Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (j) If any crack or damage is found for which the applicable service bulletin specifies to contact Airbus: Before further flight, repair per a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated agent). No Reporting Required (k) Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0240 and A300-57-6095, both Revision 01, both dated December 2, 2004, specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, but this AD does not include that requirement. Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Initial Issue of Service Bulletins (l) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0245 or A300-57-6100, both dated August 31, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (n) French airworthiness directive F-2005-198, dated December 7, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 14, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4406 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 91 and 119 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24260] Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of draft policy statement. SUMMARY: This document identifies and provides guidance on the current FAA policies regarding requests for an exemption from the rules governing the operation of aircraft for the purpose of carrying passengers on living history flights in return for compensation. Specifically, this document clarifies which aircraft are potentially eligible for an exemption and what type of information petitioners should submit to the FAA for proper consideration of relief from the applicable regulations. This policy does not apply to flight crew training or commercial space transportation issues. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments that do not include national security or sensitive security information identified by Docket Number FAA-2006-24260 using any of the following methods: • DOT Docket Web Site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information on the rulemaking process or instructions on submitting comments that include national security or sensitive security information, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Privacy: Subject to review for national security or sensitive security information, we will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Aviation and Commercial Division, Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch (AFS-810), Flight Standards Service, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8212. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In 1996, the FAA granted an exemption from various requirements of part 91 and part 119 to an aviation museum/foundation allowing the exemption holder to operate a large, crew-served, piston-powered, multiengine, World War II (WWII) bomber carrying passengers for the purpose of preserving U.S. military aviation history. In return for donations, the contributors would receive a local flight in the restored bomber. The petitioner noted that WWII combat aircraft are unique in that only a limited number remain in flyable condition, and that number is declining with the passage of time. In addition, the petitioner noted replacement parts and the specific gasoline used by these airplanes will eventually be in short supply, and may substantially reduce the aircraft performance capability or require the airplanes to be grounded. The petitioner indicated that compensation would be collected to help cover expenses associated with maintaining and operating the WWII airplane. Without these contributions, the petitioner asserted that the cost of operating and maintaining the airplane would be prohibitive. The FAA determined that these airplanes were operated under a limited category airworthiness certificate. Without type certification under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 21.27, they are not eligible for standard airworthiness certificates. The high cost of type certification under § 21.27 makes this avenue impractical for operators providing living history flights. Comparable airplanes manufactured under a standard airworthiness certificate did not exist. Thus, the FAA determined that an exemption was an appropriate way to preserve aviation history and keep the airplanes operational. In granting the exemption, the FAA found that there was an overwhelming public interest in preserving U.S. aviation history, just as the preservation of historic buildings, historic landmarks, and historic neighborhoods have been determined to be in the public interest. While aviation history can be represented in static displays in museums, in the same way historic landmarks could be represented in a museum, the public has shown support for and a desire to have these historic aircraft maintained and operated to allow them to experience a flight. As with all exemptions, the FAA also recognized it was paramount that such operations not adversely affect safety. Therefore, the FAA required flight crewmembers to meet certain qualification and training requirements (for example, requirements for an FAA-approved training program and stringent pilot qualifications, comprehensive maintenance and inspection procedures and records, and in-flight maintenance and airworthiness failure reporting procedures.). The FAA granted the exemption and relieved the petitioner from the following regulations contained in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR): • Section 91.315, which states that no person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. • Section 91.319(a), which states that no person may operate an aircraft with an experimental certificate for other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued, or for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. • Section 119.5(g), which states, in pertinent part, that no person may operate as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. • Section 119.21(a), which states, in pertinent part, that each person who conducts operations as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of persons for compensation shall comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of part 119. Subpart C of part 119 describes certification, operations specifications, and other requirements for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135. Since the issuance of that exemption, the FAA has received many exemption requests seeking the same or similar relief, even though the particular circumstances were different. These subsequent petitions raised significant concerns within the FAA and led it to reexamine and refine its criteria for issuing exemptions. In one case, petitioner requested relief to operate certain helicopters manufactured for U.S. Army operations in the Republic of Vietnam. These helicopters are similar in construction and design to a type-certificated product with a standard airworthiness certificate. The FAA generally does not issue exemptions from aviation safety regulations if the proposed operation can be performed in full compliance with the rules. However, the FAA reconsidered its position in this instance because the aircraft provided a unique, historical perspective due to the nature of its operations. The aircraft served in Viet Nam in the actual manner that they were flown in exhibition. Additionally, the particular make and model of aircraft have been on active service duty in the U.S. military longer than any other military helicopter and have carried more personnel and equipment into war zones and areas of conflict than any other aircraft. Thus, the FAA granted an exemption because of the aircraft's unique operating history. In another case, a petitioner requested an exemption to operate several single-seat, piston-powered WWII fighter aircraft that were certificated in the limited category. While the historical significance and combat history of the aircraft were appropriate to the original standard, those in civil use had been modified to a two-seat version. Single-seat aircraft converted to a two-seat configuration no longer met the same design criteria of the original aircraft, and would not generally be considered as representative of the actual aircraft used in combat operations. Another petitioner requested an exemption to operate certain large turbojet-powered aircraft, which included a foreign-manufactured and operated, 1 surplus military turbojet aircraft. Some turbojet-powered aircraft (L-29, L-39, TS-11, Alfa Jet, etc.) remain in active military service or are readily available in the current international market. The availability of these aircraft is indicative of an increasing market and thus undermines any argument that this aircraft meets the public interest goal of preserving unique, historical aircraft. Additionally, the FAA was concerned that the petitioner could not demonstrate that these aircraft had been adequately maintained. Unlike foreign-manufactured military surplus aircraft, operators of U.S.-manufactured surplus military aircraft certificated in an airworthiness category (experimental, limited, and restricted category under § 21.25(a)(2)) for which no common standards exist, were required to avoid potential safety issues through (1) the continued operation and maintenance requirements imposed on them, and (2) a requirement to provide adequate documentation of previous operational maintenance history. 1 Certification under § 21.19(d) does not require the aircraft be manufactured in the United States. Rather a foreign-manufactured aircraft operated by a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces would be treated the same as a U.S.-manufactured aircraft. However, foreign operations pose concerns over whether the aircraft, as designed, could have been certificated under § 21.19(d) and whether the aircraft has been maintained in a manner sufficient to ensure the safety of the flying public and bystanders. FAA Policy This document provides clarification on the FAA's policy on issuing exemptions to only non-profit organizations for the purpose of providing flight experiences to promote aviation history and preserve historic aircraft. The FAA recognizes the need for and seeks to promote an exposure to and appreciation of aviation history. By enabling non-profit organizations, identified as such by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, to offer living history flights for compensation used to preserve and maintain these aircraft, the public will be assured access to this important part of history. The regulations in 14 CFR establish appropriate safety standards for aircraft operators and crewmembers. Therefore, an exemption from aviation safety regulations is not routinely granted if the proposed operation can be performed in full compliance with the rules. In addition, the FAA must be persuaded that operation of the affected aircraft will not pose an undue risk to the flying public or to bystanders. The use of turbine-engine powered aircraft, in particular, raises several concerns with respect to the type and quality of training available for the flight crews and maintenance and inspection personnel. Many of these aircraft are complex in nature and require special skills to operate safely. In addition, there is risk to passengers, ground personnel and spectators when ejection seat systems, utilizing armed, explosive pyrotechnic devices are installed and operational. The FAA notes that in order to ensure that adequate consideration is given to petitioners intending to operate experimental exhibition, surplus foreign or domestic, turbojet or turbine-powered aircraft, the FAA will closely examine the proposed operation with respect to safety of flight, passenger safety considerations, and safety of the non-participating public during the operational period and within the operational area. Passenger/flight crew egress, emergency egress systems such as ejection seats, documentation or statistical make and model operational history, significance of the particular aircraft with respect to the operational history maintenance history, operational failure modes, and aging aircraft factors of individual aircraft will be taken into consideration in the analysis of an exemption request. The FAA will not automatically exclude any aircraft from consideration unless the aircraft was acquired through an Act of Congress and Congress has specified that the aircraft may not be operated for compensation or hire. 2 Rather, the FAA will evaluate each exemption request on a case-by-case basis. Those requesting an exemption from a particular standard or set of standards must demonstrate the following: (1) That there is an overriding public interest in providing a financial means for non-profit organizations to continue to preserve and operate these historic aircraft, and (2) the measures that will be taken to ensure safety will not be adversely affected. 2 In the event an exemption is mistakenly granted for such an aircraft, the exemption shall be void and the FAA may take enforcement action against the operator at any time. In order to allow the FAA to thoroughly evaluate and provide consideration to each request, petitioners should allow at least 120 days for processing and review of any exemption requests. The FAA will use the following criteria in determining whether granting an exemption is in the public interest and does not compromise safety: 1. Aircraft holding any category of airworthiness certificate issued under 14 CFR part 21 may be considered for an exemption to provide living history flight experiences. 2. Exemptions will not be limited to a particular category of aircraft or to a particular type of engine; fixed wing or rotorcraft may apply as well as piston or turbine powered. 3. Non-U.S. aircraft may be considered for an exemption if the operational and maintenance history is adequately documented. 4. Aircraft with crew egress systems will be considered, provided that flight crew, ground personnel, and passengers have completed a training program approved by the FAA. Passenger training programs must be at least as thorough as what is provided by the manufacturer or military service user when preparing an individual for a “familiarization” flight. Aircraft of the same or similar make/model/series must not be in current production or in significant commercial use for the carriage of passengers. Exceptions may be considered where a particular airframe has documented historical significance (such as the aforementioned Vietnam-era helicopter). 5. All passenger seats and their installation must: a. Take into consideration passenger egress in the event of an emergency; and be FAA-approved if installed on type-certificated aircraft; or b. Meet the military seat and installation standards or equivalent standards in existence at the time the aircraft was manufactured as outlined in 14 CFR 21.27 if installed on experimental aircraft. The FSDO having oversight for that aircraft will then ensure the approved maintenance program is modified to incorporated the specific seat inspection procedures. 6. Exemptions will be issued for the sole purpose of providing living history flights to promote aviation and preserve historic aircraft. The operations authorized under these exemptions are specifically not air tour, sightseeing, or air carrier operations. The FAA may stipulate considerations and limitations to the operation to preserve commonality and standardization. The FAA, in determining the public interest derived in any grant of exemptions of this nature, will take into consideration the number of existing aircraft and petitioners available to provide the historic service to the public. 7. The FAA must be provided with proof that the petitioner is a non-profit museum or foundation, recognized as such by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which uses the funds received from exhibitions to enable the continued display of the featured aircraft. The aircraft must be operated exclusively by the petitioner. 8. Flights must be non-stop and within 25 statute miles radius of the departure point. With concurrence of the local FSDO, special authorizations may be given to conduct flights up to a distance of 50 statute miles from the departure airport in order to meet ATC airspace restrictions or security needs. 9. Applicants may be required to submit an operational history of the make/model/type aircraft, or justification with respect to aviation history in order for the FAA to determine the public interest basis for granting an exemption. 10. If a petition for exemption is granted, the conditions and limitations may include revised operating limitations as part of the aircraft's airworthiness certificate. These operating limitations may be more restrictive than those originally issued to the aircraft. 11. Passengers must obtain a complete briefing prior to departure that adequately describes the differences between aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate and aircraft holding either an experimental or limited airworthiness certificate (i.e., The FAA has not participated in or accepted the design standards, performance standards, handling qualities, or provided approval or operational acceptance of experimental aircraft, the adequacy of previous maintenance and inspection programs and accomplishment may be in doubt, that the aircraft may not comply with FAA passenger regulations and may be operated under separate maintenance standards). The briefing shall also advise that the FAA considers flights in these aircraft to be inherently dangerous activities and has approved this exemption on the condition that the passengers taking this flight be properly trained in emergency exiting, including proper use of the ejection seat and apprised of the risks involved in flying in such aircraft. Petitioners must prepare a “waiver” for signature by the potential passenger. While a waiver cannot absolve the operator of liability in the event of an accident, the document will provide proof that the passenger has been advised of the risks inherent in the type of operation to be conducted. In addition, the signature will acknowledge the fact that the FAA has NOT made a determination that the aircraft is considered safe to carry passengers for compensation or hire. 14. Crew Qualification and Training a. Pilots must possess a minimum of a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating appropriate to the category and class of aircraft to be flown. They must also hold a type rating is required by the type of aircraft flown along with a current second class medical certificate. b. Initial and recurrent training must be performed to current ATP Practical Test Standards for aircraft requiring a special authorization or type rating to operate. c. An initial ground and flight-training program must be developed by the organization and completed by all pilots. d. Recurrent ground training must be developed and completed by all pilots or an annual cycle. e. An annual proficiency check must be conducted and if necessary, recurrent flight training will be required. A minimum activity level and satisfactory flight proficiency check may allow the requirement for recurrent flight training to be waived. f. The petitioner will state the minimum flight experience required for each pilot position. g. Pilots will maintain takeoff and landing currency in each make and model. h. A system for documenting and recording all crew qualifications, required training, checking and currency must be developed and maintained. i. All training and checking programs must be approved by the FAA. 15. Maintenance/Inspection of Aircraft a. The maintenance history of each individual aircraft must be provided. b. The petitioner must provide an FAA approved maintenance/inspection program that may be a program based on military and/or original manufacturer's manuals and must be in accordance with the type certification data sheet and the aircraft's operating limitations. c. All maintenance and inspections will be documented and recorded. d. Applicants may be required to submit an operational history of the make/model/type in order for the FAA to verify that the submitted maintenance/inspection program is adequate. 16. All maintenance or operational incidents will be reported to the Flight Standards District Office in whose district the organization's principal base of operations is located. 17. Passenger Safety and Training a. An FAA approved passenger briefing must be conducted appropriate to the scope of operations. Passengers must be fully informed of the risks associated with the proposed rides, and that occupying a seat in these aircraft may subject the rider to a high level of risk. Some operations may require passenger-briefing cards. b. The passenger briefing must include normal and emergency egress procedures, passenger seating, and overview of safety restraint systems. c. Passenger training equivalent to that provided for Department of Defense familiarization flights must be approved by the FAA and conducted for all flights involving any of the following: i. Ejection seats, if the aircraft is so equipped; ii. High altitude operations, if flight will be conducted above 10,000 feet MSL; iii. Oxygen system, for flights above 10,000 feet MSL or if use of the system is required by type of operation. Petitioners will be required to demonstrate their ability to safely perform the operations requested and to meet all operating and maintenance requirements. The extent of this demonstration will be dependent on the scope of the operation requested. Petitioners who have conducted this type of operation must provide a summary of their operating history. Additionally, all petitioners will be required to submit documentation sufficient to allow the FAA to determine the number of passenger seats to be utilized during compensated operations and the FAA approval status of those seats. Petitioners will also be required to provide the U.S. registration number and make/model/serial number of the aircraft to be used. Petitioners who have submitted requests should review this draft policy statement and consider supplementing their petitions if they have not previously provided the necessary information. The FAA will consider any information submitted and determine whether more information is necessary to make a decision on whether it is appropriate to grant an exemption for a particular aircraft. The FAA anticipates that some aircraft models that have been granted exemptions may no longer qualify for future exemptions. Petitioners should be precise regarding the requirements from which they seek relief. In addition petitioners should provide copies of the airworthiness certificate, including a copy of the operating limitations issued for each aircraft that would be subject to the conditions and limitations of the proposed exemption. Those submitting petitions for exemption or additional information should submit the required information to the following: (1) for paper submissions, send the original signed copy of your submission to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management System, 400 7th Street, SW., Room PL 401, Washington, DC 20591-0001; or (2) for electronic submissions, submit your information to the FAA through the Internet using the Docket Management System Web site at this Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov/. If you already have received a docket number, you must reference that docket number in your request. The FAA is soliciting comments from the public regarding this draft policy statement. We will not consider any new requests for exemption from the date this proposed policy is published to the time at which all comments are received and adjudicated. Issued in Washington, DC on March 21, 2006. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. 06-2915 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]