[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58978-58982]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23324]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0828; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-036-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-15-
17, which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300; and Model
A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2009-15-17 required an
inspection for damage to the protective treatments or any corrosion of
all main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams, and application of protective
treatments if no damage or corrosion was found. If any damage or
corrosion was found, corrective action followed by the application of
protective treatments was required. Since we issued AD 2009-15-17, we
received reports of thin paint coats and paint degradation on enhanced
MLG bogie beams. This proposed AD would add repetitive detailed
inspections of the MLG bogie beams. This proposed AD would also require
modification of the MLG bogie beams, which would terminate the
repetitive inspections for any modified bogie beam. This proposed AD
would also provide optional methods of compliance for inspections for
corrosion, damage of the protective treatment, repair, and
modification, of the MLG bogie beam. This proposed AD would also revise
the applicability. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
damage or corrosion of the MLG bogie beams, which could cause a runway
excursion event, bogie beam detachment from the airplane, or MLG
collapse, which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to
the occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 12,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. For Messier-Dowty service information identified
in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer
Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone
703-450-8233; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket

contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0828;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-036-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On July 2, 2009, we issued AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR
37523, July 29, 2009). That AD required actions intended to address an
unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523,
July 29, 2009), we received reports of thin paint coats and paint
degradation on enhanced MLG bogie beams. The European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-
0015, dated January 23, 2012 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    The operator of an A330 aeroplane (which has a common bogie beam
with the A340) reported a fracture of the right-hand (RH) main
landing gear (MLG) bogie beam, which occurred while turning during
low speed taxi maneuvers. The bogie fractured aft of the pivot point
and remained attached to the sliding tube by the brake torque
reaction rods. After this RH bogie failure, the aeroplane continued
for approximately 40 meters on the forks of the sliding member
before coming to rest on the taxiway.
    The preliminary investigations revealed that his event was due
to corrosion pitting occurring on the bore of the bogie beam.
Investigations are ongoing to determine why bogie beam internal
paint has been degraded, leading to a loss of cadmium plating,
thereby allowing development of corrosion pitting.
    This condition if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
runway excursion event or to detachment of the bogie from the
aeroplane, or to MLG collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the
aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
    To enable early detection and repair of corrosion of the
internal surfaces, EASA issued EASA AD 2007-0314 to require a one-
time inspection of all MLG bogie beams, except Enhanced MLG bogie
beams, and the reporting of the results to Airbus. EASA AD 2007-0314
was revised and later superseded by EASA AD 2008-0093, reducing the
inspection threshold.
    The results of subsequent investigations showed thin paint coats
and paint degradation, confirmed as well on Enhanced MLG bogie
beams. To address this additional concern, EASA issued EASA AD 2011-
0141 [which was not mandated by the FAA], retaining the requirements
of EASA AD 2008-0093, which was superseded, to require a one-time
visual inspection of all MLG bogie beams, including a visual
examination of the internal diameter for corrosion or damage to
protective treatments of the bogie beam and measurement of the paint
thickness on the internal bore, accomplishment of the applicable
corrective actions and a modification of the MLG bogie beam to
improve the coat paint application method, and application of
corrosion protection.
    Prompted by in-service requests, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2011-0141, which is superseded, and
introduces repetitive inspections [for damage to protective
treatments or corrosion] of the MLG bogie beams, which allows
extension of the compliance time for the MLG bogie beam modification
[for improved protection from corrosion] from 15 years to 21 years.
Modification of a MLG bogie beam constitutes terminating action for
the repetitive inspections for that MLG bogie beam.

This proposed AD also provides optional methods of compliance for
inspections for corrosion, damage of the protective treatment, repair,
and modification, of the MLG bogie beam. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus and Messier-Dowty have issued the following service
bulletins. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
     Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-32-3237 (for Model
A330 series airplanes), dated January 18, 2011.
     Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4279 (for Model
A340 series airplanes), dated January 18, 2011.
     Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, including
Appendices A, B, C, and D, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2008.
     Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including
Appendices A and B, dated February 17, 2010.
     Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283, including
Appendix A, dated May 11, 2010.
     Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-284, including
Appendix A, dated May 11, 2010.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as
follows: The MCAI specifies repair and corrective actions in accordance
with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 1, dated
October 30, 2008; or A340-32-4268, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008.
However, Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-32-3225, Revision 1,
dated October 30, 2008; and A340-32-4268, Revision 1, dated October 30,
2008; do not describe those actions. Paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and
(g)(1)(ii) of this proposed AD specify repair and corrective actions in
accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision
1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 51 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and actions retained    22 work-hours x $85              $0  $1,870 per           $95,370 per
 from AD 2009-15-17 (74 FR 37523,   per hour = $1,870                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
 July 29, 2009).                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Inspection and modification [new   44 work-hours x $85               0  3,740 per            190,740 per
 proposed actions].                 per hour = $3,740                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009), and adding
the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-0828; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
036-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 12, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR
37523, July 29, 2009).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and
-313 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer
serial numbers, except those airplanes on which Airbus modification
58896 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of thin paint coats and paint
degradation on enhanced main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct damage or corrosion of the MLG
bogie beams, which could cause a runway excursion event, bogie beam
detachment from the airplane, or main landing gear collapse, which
could in result damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Retained Actions and Compliance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009). For
Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series
airplanes, all serial numbers, except those on which Airbus
modification 54500 has been embodied in production or Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3212 has been embodied in service: Unless already
done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD: Clean the internal bore and perform a
detailed visual inspection of internal surfaces of the MLG bogie
beam (right-hand and left-hand) for any damage to the protective
treatments or any corrosion, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225 or
A340-32-4268, both Revision 01, both dated October 30, 2008; as
applicable.
    (i) If no damage and corrosion is found, before further flight,
apply the protective

treatments of the bogie beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272,
Revision 1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22,
2008.
    (ii) If any damage or corrosion is found, before further flight,
do all applicable corrective actions and apply the protective
treatments of the bogie beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272,
Revision 1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22,
2008.
    (2) For airplanes with 54 months or less time-in-service since
the date of issuance of the original French airworthiness
certificate or the date of issuance of the original French or EASA
export certificate of airworthiness as of September 2, 2009 (the
effective date of AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523,
July 29, 2009): At the latest of the applicable times specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii) of this AD, do the
actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (i) Not before 54 months since the date of issuance of the
original French airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original French or EASA export certificate of airworthiness, but
no later than 72 months since the date of issuance of the original
French airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original French or EASA export certificate of airworthiness.
    (ii) Not before 54 months since the installation of a new bogie
beam in-service before September 2, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009)), but no
later than 72 months since the installation of a new bogie beam in-
service before September 2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-
17).
    (iii) Not before 54 months since the last overhaul of a bogie
beam before September 2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-17,
Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009), but no later than
72 months since the last overhaul of a bogie beam before September
2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-17).
    (3) For airplanes with more than 54 months time-in-service since
the date of issuance of the original French airworthiness
certificate or the date of issuance of the original French or EASA
export certificate of airworthiness as of September 2, 2009 (the
effective date of AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523,
July 29, 2009): At the applicable time specified in paragraph
(g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), (g)(3)(iii), (g)(3)(iv), or (g)(3)(v) of this
AD, do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes on which the bogie beam has not been replaced
or overhauled since the date of issuance of the original French
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
French or EASA export certificate of airworthiness as of September
2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74
FR 37523, July 29, 2009): Within 18 months after September 2, 2009
(the effective date of AD 2009-15-17).
    (ii) For airplanes on which the bogie beam has been replaced in-
service with a new bogie beam and the new bogie beam has more than
54 months time-in-service as of September 2, 2009 (the effective
date of AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29,
2009): Within 18 months after September 2, 2009 (the effective date
of AD 2009-15-17).
    (iii) For airplanes on which the bogie beam has been replaced
in-service with a new bogie beam and the new bogie beam has 54
months or less time-in-service as of September 2, 2009 (the
effective date of AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523,
July 29, 2009): Not before 54 months since the installation of a new
bogie beam in-service before September 2, 2009 (the effective date
of AD 2009-15-17), but no later than 72 months since the
installation of a new bogie beam in-service before September 2, 2009
(the effective date of AD 2009-15-17).
    (iv) For airplanes on which the bogie beam has been overhauled
and the overhauled bogie beam has more than 54 months time-in-
service as of September 2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-
17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009): Within 18
months after September 2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-
17), or at the next scheduled bogie beam overhaul, whichever occurs
first.
    (v) For airplanes on which the bogie beam has been overhauled
and the overhauled bogie beam has 54 months or less time-in-service
as of September 2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-17,
Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009): Not before 54
months since the last overhaul of a bogie beam before September 2,
2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-17), but no later than 72
months since the last overhaul of a bogie beam before September 2,
2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-17).
    (4) Within 30 days after accomplishment of the inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, or within 30 days after
September 2, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-15-17, Amendment
39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009), whichever occurs later:
Report the results, including no findings, to Airbus, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (5) Actions accomplished in accordance with Messier-Dowty
Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, Revision 1, including Appendices A
and B, dated November 16, 2007, are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
    (6) Actions accomplished before September 2, 2009 (the effective
date of AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29,
2009), in accordance with the service bulletins specified in
paragraphs (g)(6)(i) through (g)(6)(iv) of this AD are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
this AD.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, dated
November 21, 2007.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, dated
November 21, 2007.
    (iii) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, including
Appendix A, dated September 13, 2007.
    (iv) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, including
Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    For Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F,
-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes;
and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; all
manufacturer serial numbers, except those airplanes on which Airbus
modification 58896 has been embodied in production: Repeat the
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD at intervals not
to exceed 72 months, but not before 48 months since first flight
after the most recent MLG bogie beam overhaul done after the most
recent inspection, until the modification specified in paragraph (i)
of this AD is done.

(i) New Inspection and Modification

    For Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F,
-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes;
and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; all
manufacturer serial numbers, except those airplanes on which Airbus
modification 58896 has been embodied in production: Before the
accumulation of 252 months on a MLG bogie beam, or within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for damage and corrosion of the
internal bores of the MLG bogie beam, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both dated January 18, 2011, as
applicable. If any damage or corrosion is found, repair, as
applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both
dated January 18, 2011, as applicable.
    (2) Modify and re-identify, as applicable, the MLG bogie beam,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both dated January 18, 2011,
as applicable.

(j) New Optional Terminating Action

    For Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F,
-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes;
and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; all
manufacturer serial numbers, except those airplanes on which Airbus
modification 58896 has been embodied in production: Modification of
a MLG bogie beam done in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD,
terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and
(h) of this AD for that modified MLG bogie beam.

(k) New Exception to Service Information Specifications

    The inspection requirement of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD and
the modification requirement of paragraph (i)(2) of this AD do not
apply to any MLG bogie beam having any serial number listed in
Appendix A of

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283 or A33/34-32-284, both
including Appendix A, both dated May 11, 2010, as applicable.

(l) New Optional Methods of Compliance

    (1) Inspections for corrosion and damage to the protective
treatment of the bogie beam, and repairs, done in accordance with
Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including appendices A
and B, dated February 17, 2010, are acceptable methods of compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Modification of a MLG bogie beam, done in accordance with
Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins A33/34-32-283 and A33/34-32-284,
both including Appendix A, both dated May 11, 2010, as applicable,
is an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

(m) New Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a MLG
bogie beam on any airplane unless it is in compliance with the
requirements and compliance times of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of
this AD.

(n) New Reporting Requirement

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
the inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD to
Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, using the applicable reporting sheet in
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both dated
January 18, 2011, at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they were approved by the State of Design Authority
(or its delegated agent). For a repair method to be approved, the
repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. You are required
to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(p) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0015, dated January 23, 2012, for
related information, which can be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 17, 2013.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23324 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

IR-4 Project Headquarters

PP #6E8488

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 6E8488) from IR-4 Project
Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.463 by establishing tolerances for the
combined residues of the herbicide quinclorac,
3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities: the caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.06 parts
per million (ppm); the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, except lowbush
blueberry at 0.6 ppm; and asparagus at 0.06 ppm.  EPA has determined
that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements
set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residues in
quinclorac in plants is adequately understood for currently registered
uses, based on metabolism studies on rice, grain sorghum, wheat and
canola.  In each of these studies, the major 14C residue was identified
as the parent compound.  The methyl ester of quinclorac was present as a
minor metabolite, but methyl ester is measured by the enforcement
method.  An additional metabolism study has been conducted on a fruit
(strawberry) and the parent quinclorac was the only residue of concern
in the fruit.  A minor polar metabolite was detected only in strawberry
foliage, but not in any fruit sample.

	2. Analytical method. Adequate analytical methods (GC/ECD) are
available for enforcing quinclorac tolerances on plant (BASF Method
A8902; MRID# 41063537) and livestock (BASF Method 268/1; MRID# 41063536)
commodities.  Both methods have undergone successful agency method
validation trials and have been submitted to FDA for publication in PAM
II as the tolerance enforcement methods.  The LOQ of both methods is
0.05 ppm for all matrices.  Updated enforcement analytical methods have
been submitted for determining residues of quinclorac, per se, in/on
plant parts, an LC/MS/MS method (BASF Method D9708/1).  The validated
LOQ for quinclorac is 0.05 ppm.  Quinclorac methyl ester can be
determined by an LC/MS/MS method (BASF method D9806/02).  Furthermore,
FDA has reported that quinclorac can be detected by Multiresidue
Protocol B.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were carried out in order to
determine the magnitude of residues in blueberry, caneberry and
asparagus.  Seven blueberry field trials were conducted in blueberry
growing regions of the United States.  Blueberry is the representative
crop for Bushberry subgroup 13-07B.  Six caneberry field trials were
conducted in caneberry growing regions of the United States.  Caneberry
is the representative crop for Caneberry subgroup 13-07A.  Seven
asparagus field trials were conducted in asparagus growing regions of
the United States.  Field trials were carried out using the maximum
number of applications, the maximum label rate and shortest pre-harvest
interval (PHI).  Asparagus will be the representative for Stalk and stem
vegetable subgroup 22A, however, the use pattern proposed for quinclorac
on asparagus, is unlikely to be appropriate for other members of the
subgroup.

B. Toxicological Profile

Acute toxicity. Quinclorac (technical grade material) has a low order of
acute toxicity as demonstrated by Toxicity Category III by the oral,
dermal, and inhalation routes. The chemical is a mild eye irritant, is
not a skin irritant, but was positive for dermal sensitization.

Genotoxicity. Quinclorac has been tested for its genotoxic potential in
a battery of six in vitro or in vivo studies covering the required
endpoints of point mutations, chromosomal damage and DNA damage and
repair.  Quinclorac did not demonstrate any genotoxic effects.
Quinclorac was negative for inducing mutations in both an in vitro Ames
test and an in vitro forward mutation assay in mammalian cells (HGPRT
test with and without metabolic activation).  Both an in vitro and an in
vivo chromosome aberration assay (with and without metabolic activation)
showed no evidence of a clastogenic effect.  Unscheduled DNA synthesis
was not induced in the UDS assay.  A mutagenicity evaluation with
Bacillus subtilis (with and without metabolic activation) was also
negative.  These studies demonstrate that Quinclorac is not genotoxic.

3.	Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a 2-generation
reproduction study (MRID # 41063526), Quinclorac (≥97.3% a.i.) was
administered to Wistar rats (24/sex/group) at dietary levels of 0,
1,000, 4,000 or 12,000 ppm (0, 40, 160 or 480 mg/kg/day, respectively).
No effects on reproductive parameters were observed.  The reproductive
toxicity NOAEL is 12,000 ppm (480 mg/kg/day).  A reproductive toxicity
LOAEL was not established (>480 mg/kg/day).  This study was classified
as Acceptable/guideline and satisfied the guideline requirement for a
multigeneration reproductive toxicity study in the rodent (870.3800).

There was no increased qualitative or quantitative fetal or offspring
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental or postnatal reproduction
studies.  Developmental toxicity in rabbit consisted of increased
resorptions, post-implantation loss, decreased number of live fetuses,
and reduced fetal body weight.  These effects occurred at much higher
doses than the maternal effects of decreased food consumption and
increased water consumption and decreased body weight gain.  In rat no
developmental toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested (438
mg/kg/day).  In the 2-generation reproduction study, parental toxicity
and offspring toxicity occurred at the same dose.  Parental toxicity
consisted of reduced body weight in both sexes during premating and
lactation periods.  Offspring toxicity consisted of decreased pup
weight, developmental delays and possible marginal effect on pup
viability.

Subchronic toxicity. In a subchronic toxicity study (MRID 41063516),
Quinclorac (96.5% a.i.) was administered to 10 Wistar Chhb-THOM (SPF)
rats/sex/dose in diet, at dose levels of 0, 1000, 4000, or 12000 ppm (0,
76.8, 302.3 or 929.9 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 86.7, 358.0 or 1035.4
mg/kg/day for females).  No deaths occurred.  No compound related
clinical signs of toxicity were observed.  The LOAEL is 12,000 ppm
(males 929.9 and females 1035.4 mg/kg/day), based on decreases in body
weight gain, food consumption and an increase in water intake in males
and females, and decrease in monocytes in female, increases in SGOT and
SGPT in males, and pathological changes in kidneys of males (slight to
minimal focal chronic interstitial nephritis).  The NOAEL is 4000 ppm
(males 302.3 and females 358.0 mg/kg/day).  This subchronic toxicity
study was classified unacceptable/non-guideline due to lack of
information on the purity of the test material and information on
stability and homogeneity of the test substance in the diet.

In a subchronic toxicity study (MRID 41063518), Quinclorac (98.29% a.i.)
was administered to 10 B6C3F1/Crl BR mice/sex/dose in diet, at dose
levels of 0, 4000, 8000, or 16000 ppm (0, 1000, 2202 or 4555 mg/kg/day
for males and 0, 1467, 2735 or 5953 mg/kg/day for females).  No deaths
occurred.  No compound related clinical signs of toxicity were observed.
 At 8000 and 16000 ppm there was an increase in water intake in males
and females and BUN in males.  There was decreased kidney weight in
males and females and relative kidney weight in males in the 16,000 ppm
group.  At 4000 ppm there was decreased body weight gain in males and
females.  The LOAEL is 4,000 ppm (males 1,000 and females 1467
mg/kg/day), based on decreases in body weight.  The NOAEL was not
established.  This subchronic toxicity study was classified
Acceptable/non- guideline requirement for a subchronic oral study (82-1)
in mice.  However considered with MRID 41063519, it was acceptable/
guideline.

In another subchronic toxicity study (MRID 41063519), Quinclorac (98.29%
a.i.) was administered to 10 B6C3F1/Crl BR mice/sex/dose in diet, at
dose levels of 0 or 500 ppm (75 mg/kg/day, HDT).  No deaths occurred.
No compound related clinical signs of toxicity were observed.  Females
in the 500 ppm group had slightly (although statistically significant)
reduced body weights when compared to controls on day 98.  This decrease
was minimal and is not believed to be compound related since body
weights were not significantly different at any other time intervals.
The NOAEL is 500 ppm (75 mg/kg/day).  This subchronic toxicity study was
classified Unacceptable because only one dose level was tested.  However
considered with MRID 41063518, it was acceptable /guideline.

5.	Chronic toxicity. A 1-year feeding study in dogs fed 0, 34, 142, and
513 (males) and 0, 35, 140, and 469 (females) milligrams/kilogram/day
(mg/kg/day) resulted in a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 140
mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight gains, adverse effect on food
efficiency, hematological and clinical chemistry values, increased liver
and kidney weights, and microscopic findings in liver and kidneys at 513
mg/kg/day (males) and 469 mg/kg/day.

6.	Animal metabolism A metabolism study with rats receiving dosages of
15, 100, 600 and 1200 mg/kg/day resulted in more than 90% of the
administered radioactivity eliminated in the urine within 5 days (most
within 24 hours) and 0.7%–3.7% in the feces. Radioactivity was mainly
associated with the unchanged parent compound. The glucuronic acid
conjugate of quinclorac was a minor (2%–5%) metabolite in urine.

7.	Metabolite toxicology. Quiclorac was the primary metabolite reported
in a rat metabolism study (MRID 41063533).  Elimination was primarily in
the urine (91-98%) with small amounts in the feces (1-4%) eliminated by
day 5 after dosing.

Endocrine disruption. No specific scientific studies have been conducted
to determine endocrine effects. Toxicity testing demonstrates no
apparent estrogenic effects or treatment-related effects of quinclorac
on the endocrine system.

Aggregate Exposure

Dietary exposure. Previous acute and chronic aggregate dietary (food and
drinking water) exposure and risk assessments have been conducted using
the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 which uses
food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America,
(NHANES/WWEIA).  This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008.
These analyses were performed to support the tolerance with no U.S.
registration for quinclorac in/on Rapeseed Subgroup 20A for the use of
the DMA salt of quinclorac in Canada. All registered, pending and
proposed uses of quinclorac and the DMA salt of quinclorac, were
included in assessments.  Both the acute and chronic assessments were
highly conservative and incorporated tolerance/maximum residue level
estimates based on field trial data for the residues of concern and
assume 100% crop treated. Default processing factors were used and,
based on empirical data, a processing factor of l .5x was used for oil
commodities of the Rapeseed Subgroup 20A.

Food. Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment:  In the most recent human
health risk assessment conducted by the EPA, the acute (food + water)
dietary risk estimate at the 95th percentile of exposure utilized 1.6%
of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for females age 13 to 49.
This is the only population subgroup for which an acute endpoint was
selected.  The addition of caneberries, blueberries and asparagus may
result in an increase in dietary exposures but this additional exposure
will not result in unacceptable dietary risks and will be below 100% of
the aPAD.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment: In the most recent human health
risk assessment conducted by the EPA, the chronic (food + water) dietary
risk estimates are less than or equal to 8.9% of the chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD) for all population subgroups.  All Infants < I year
of age is the most highly-exposed subgroup, utilizing 8.9% of the cPAD,
while the general US population utilizes 3.6% of the cPAD.  The addition
of caneberries, blueberries and asparagus may result in an increase in
dietary exposures, but this additional exposure will not result in
unacceptable dietary risks and will be below 100% of the aPAD.

Drinking water. Water residues were previously incorporated in DEEM-FCID
via entry into the food categories “water, direct, all sources” and
“water, indirect, all sources.”  The estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) from existing and proposed uses of quinclorac for
both acute and chronic scenarios in ground and surface water are 0.029
ppm and 0.511 ppm, respectively.

	In the previous human health risk assessment conducted by the EPA, the
rice use (labeled for a single application of 0.5 lb a.i./A) was
identified as the use resulting in the highest estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) for surface water.  Because the use on rice
involves flooding (for which the current Tier II model is not
parameterized), the surface water EDWCs were assessed using a Tier I
Rice Model, Version 1.0 (May 8, 2007).  Turf grass was identified as the
use resulting in the highest EDWCs for ground water.  The EDWC in
ground water was assessed using the Tier I Screening Concentration in
Ground Water (SCI-GROW, Version 2.3) model.  Based on the rice and turf
modeling estimates the EDWCs for both acute and chronic scenarios in
ground and surface water are 0.029 ppm and 0.511 ppm, respectively.  The
proposed use on caneberries, blueberries and asparagus are for
applications to be made at 0.375 lb ai/acre with two applications and a
30 day PHI for blueberry and caneberry.  For asparagus, one application
at 0.375 lb ai/acre will be made after the last harvest and prior to the
first frost.  These uses are not expected to result in higher EDWCs than
turf and/or rice so the previous EDWCs are still appropriate for use in
risk assessment.

Non-dietary exposure. Quinclorac is currently registered for use in turf
and has been previously assessed by the EPA.  No dermal endpoint for
quinclorac has been identified because no dermal toxicity was observed
at the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg bw/day in the 21-day dermal toxicity
study.  For the turf use, oral exposure from hand-to-mouth and
object-to-mouth for toddlers is expected.  The addition of caneberries,
blueberry and asparagus will not impact non-dietary exposures so the
previously assessed non-dietary exposures are still appropriate for use
in risk assessment.

Cumulative Effects

Quinclorac has not been identified as having a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other active ingredient.

Safety Determination

U.S. population. The addition of caneberries, blueberries and asparagus
to the quinclorac risk cup will not result in unreasonable risks and
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the
aggregate exposure to quinclorac.

-

$

†

ˆ

h83

h83

摧㿓ðᰀ7␃਀Ħ䘋

萎ɸ萏d萑ː␱崀碄市撄怀킄愂$摧幹¦ᰀ7␃਀Ħ䘋

caneberries, blueberries and asparagus to the quinclorac risk cup will
not result in unreasonable risks and there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result to infants or children from the aggregate
exposure to quinclorac.

International Tolerances

There are no CODEX maximum residue limits established for quinclorac on
blueberry, caneberry or asparagus.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2