The aircraft is now in the hanger and will need at least one month to get ready for flying, says Biman sources.

The aircraft used to fly on Dhaka-Sylhet-London route.

Biman Bangladesh Airlines formed a seven-member committee headed by its Director (customer service) Aminul Huq to probe the May 4 accident.

CAAB formed another three-member committee headed by Wing Commander (flight safety) Kamrul Hasan.

The national flag carrier has long been facing serious trouble in maintaining its flight schedule due to acute shortage of aircraft.

Biman currently owns three types of aircraft -- four DC10-30, four F28, and three A310-300.

Of them, only four or five can fly everyday, while the rest are grounded due to technical glitches.

Biman general manager central control Mahmud said that it would not be a problem although one of its very-few long haul aircraft is in hanger.

?We have already re-scheduled our flight routes for long haul,? he said.

Responding to a question he said Biman has a leased Boeing 747 and two other air buses for long haul. ?Another 747 is in the process to join the fleet under lease system,? he said.

But he admitted that the rate of flight delay will be increased due to the airbus accident.

Under the circumstances, the platoon commander ordered that we drink the beer we carried with us and use the empty bottles for target shooting. This meant that if you could still find the target, the more beers you drunk the more bottles you could shot.

It is probably only in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Aru near Arua, where the beer empties were more valued than the contents. On a visit there with a group of foreign Service officers, the local Congolese army commander directed that we could consume as many crates of Primus as we wished, provided we did not take his bottles with us.

We obediently did justice to the contents and left the barracks speaking broken Lingala. In later years in Kampala, beer and soda bottles were banned by the directors of Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium after a stampede in which several people were killed and many others injured. Only plastic containers were henceforth allowed inside the stadium.

Meanwhile, Uganda Breweries Limited (UBL) were busy promoting their 'Bell' brand, a drink that most Ugandans have always relished and which to many is equal to none. In the same way Ugandans refer to almost all petrol stations as 'Shell', 'Bell' was regarded as a special brew that could not be equated to other brands.

That perhaps explains the Luganda song in which a female singer prevailed on her boyfriend to buy her only 'Bell' because 'beer' did not give her the desired effect. "Gula kide, gula kide, ddaali gula kide bbiya takwata" is how the song went.

And this brings me to Nile Breweries' current decision to launch a new bottle for its Club and Nile Special products without changing the taste of the contents altogether. Packaging is of course still a big problem in Uganda, although its effect on the sales varies from product to product. Quality and packaging battles are not new between competing breweries.

They also exist among producers of various beverages. On its part, UBL has been more conservative because, over the years, it has introduced only the new Guinness and the new Tusker bottles plus their Senator beer brand in the Keg. Their 'Bell' brand bottle has remained the same for as long as I can remember.

By contrast, Nile Breweries have since 1972 made regular attempts to change their packaging in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, only to discard the new packaging before even the ink on the designs has dried out.

The same has happened to some of their brands like Nile Lite which was hurriedly withdrawn from the market for reasons best known to them. Their extra strong brews like 'Chairman' which the urban folk found rather intimidating are now confined to rural areas where the poor peasants inevitably consume it.

The question is whether the beer consumer in Uganda is interested in the shape of the bottle in which the product is packaged than the quality of the contents. I and other men I have spoken to think it is the quality that matters than the bottle, but the women may have a different opinion.

Some observers suspect that Nile Breweries' intention in introducing the new 500ml bottle was to discredit products that are packaged in the standard beer bottle by their rivals. But that argument is contradicted by the fact that three of Nile Breweries' brands are still dressed in the same type of bottle they are allegedly discrediting.

In my view, the bottom line is to ensure that the consumers' interest in the product is sustained by keeping the quality, quantity and price of the product constant. As long as they are kept clean, the bottles or other containers are not a big deal.

Mr Kiwanuka is a journalist and retired foreign service officer

The aircraft is now in the hanger and will need at least one month to get ready for flying, say Biman sources.

The aircraft used to fly on Dhaka-Sylhet-London route.

Biman Bangladesh Airlines formed a seven-member committee headed by its Director (customer service) Aminul Huq to probe the May 4 accident.

CAAB formed another three-member committee headed by Wing Commander (flight safety) Kamrul Hasan.

The national flag carrier has long been facing serious trouble in maintaining its flight schedule due to acute shortage of aircraft.

Biman currently owns three types of aircraft -- four DC10-30, four F28, and three A310-300.

Of them, only four or five can fly everyday, while the rest are grounded due to technical glitches.

Biman general manager central control Mahmud said that it would not be a problem although one of its very-few long haul aircraft is in hanger.

"We have already re-scheduled our flight routes for long haul," he said.

Responding to a question he said Biman has a leased Boeing 747 and two other air buses for long haul. Another 747 is in the process to join the fleet under lease system, he said.

But he admitted that the rate of flight delay will be increased due to the airbus accident.

(UNB)

reduce the threshold and repetitive intervals for the detailed inspection for certain airplanes and would reduce the applicability of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the pylon thrust and sideload fitting of the wing, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

EFFECTIVE DATE: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:

. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

. Fax: 202-493-2251.

. Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M- 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2008-0657; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-296-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 because of 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 24, 1998, we issued AD 98-16-11, amendment 39-10687 (63 FR 40816, July 31, 1998), for certain Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect cracks in the pylon thrust and sideload fitting of the wing, and replacement of any cracked pylon thrust and sideload fitting with a new fitting. That AD resulted from issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracks in the pylon thrust and sideload fitting of the wing, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

Since we issued AD 98-16-11, Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:

     Table.--New Service Bulletins
A300-57-0232, Revision 02, dated       A300 series airplanes.
February 21, 2000
A300-57-6079, Revision 04, dated       A300-600 series airplanes.
February 21, 2000
A310-57-2075, Revision 03, dated       A310 series airplanes.
December 1, 2006

The repetitive detailed inspections and replacement procedures are essentially identical to those specified in previous issues of the service bulletins. (AD 98-16-11 refers to Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0232, Revision 01 (for Model A300 series airplanes); A310-57-2075, Revision 01 (for Model A310 series airplanes); and A300-57-6079, Revision 02 (for Model A300- 600 series airplanes); all dated January 12, 1998; as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions.) Revision 03 of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2075 reduces the detailed inspection thresholds and repeat intervals for certain airplanes. In addition, the effectivity listing of all three service bulletins has been revised to remove airplanes that have been scrapped. No more work is necessary for airplanes on which previous issues of the service bulletins were done.

Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, mandated the service information and issued EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0243, dated September 4, 2007, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

These airplanes 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. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, "Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness," dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA'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 98-16-11 and would continue to require, at reduced thresholds and repetitive intervals for certain airplanes, repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect cracks in the pylon thrust and

[Page Number 34226]

sideload fitting of the wing, and would continue to require replacement of any cracked pylon thrust and sideload fitting with a new fitting. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in service information described previously.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and EASA AD

The proposed AD would differ from the parallel EASA airworthiness directive in that it would not allow for adjustment in compliance time based on airplane utilization. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, and the average utilization of the affected fleet. In light of these factors, we find the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this proposed AD to be warranted, in that they represent an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

Change to Existing AD

This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 98-16-11. Since AD 98- 16-11 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 proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

     Revised Paragraph Identifiers
Requirement in AD 98-16-11             Corresponding
                                       requirement in this
                                       proposed AD
paragraph (a)                          paragraph (f).
paragraph (b)                          paragraph (g).

In addition, we have revised the applicability of this proposed AD to refer to the latest revisions of the service information described previously.

We also changed all references to a "detailed visual inspection" in the existing AD to "detailed inspection" in this action.

Costs of Compliance

This proposed AD would affect about 164 Model A300, A310, and A300-600 series airplanes of U.S. registry.

The inspections that are required by AD 98-16-11 and retained in this proposed AD take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $39,360, or $240 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 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.

[Section] 39.13 [Amended]

2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends [Section] 39.13 by removing amendment 39-10687 (63 FR 40816, July 31, 1998) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2008-0657; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-296-AD.

Comments Due Date

(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 17, 2008.

Affected ADs

(b) This AD supersedes AD 98-16-11.

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category.

     Table 1.--Applicability
(1) A300 series airplanes              A300-57-0232, Revision 02, dated
                                       February 21, 2000.
(2) A310 series airplanes              A310-57-2075, Revision 03, dated
                                       December 1, 2006.
(3) A300-600 series airplanes          A300-57-6079, Revision 04, dated
                                       February 21, 2000.

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD results from issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the pylon thrust and sideload fitting of the wing, 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

[Page Number 34227]

the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.

Requirements of AD 98-16-11:

Repetitive Detailed Inspections at Reduced Thresholds and Repeat Intervals for Certain Airplanes

(f) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection to detect cracks in the pylon thrust and sideload fitting of the wing, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300- 57-0232, Revision 01 (for Model A300 series airplanes); A310-57-2075, Revision 01 (for Model A310 series airplanes); or A300-57-6079, Revision 02 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); all dated January 12, 1998; as applicable; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(1) For Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes: Inspect prior to the accumulation of 2,800 total flight cycles, or within 18 months after September 4, 1998 (the effective date AD 98-16-11), whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,800 flight cycles.

(2) For Model A310 series airplanes: Inspect at the earlier of the times specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in Table 3 of this AD.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 2,800 total flight cycles, or within 18 months after September 4, 1998, whichever occurs later.

(ii) At the applicable time specified in Table 2 of this AD.

     Table 2.--Reduced Inspection Thresholds for Model A310 Series Airplanes
                           Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
Model                     Threshold                 Grace period
A310-200 series airplanes Before the accumulation   Within 800 flight cycles
                          of 1,500 total flight     or 1,600 flight hours
                          cycles or 3,000 total     after the effective date
                          flight hours since first  of this AD, whichever
                          flight, whichever occurs  occurs first.
                          first
A310-300 series airplanes Before the accumulation   Within 800 flight cycles
(short range)             of 1,300 total flight     or 1,600 flight hours
                          cycles or 3,800 total     after the effective date
                          flight hours since first  of this AD, whichever
                          flight, whichever occurs  occurs first.
                          first
A310-300 series airplanes Before the accumulation   Within 800 flight cycles
(long range)              of 800 total flight       or 1,600 flight hours
                          cycles or 4,000 total     after the effective date
                          flight hours since first  of this AD, whichever
                          flight, whichever occurs  occurs first.
                          first

     Table 3.--Reduced Repeat Intervals for Model A310 Series Airplanes
A310-200 series airplanes Within 1,500 flight       1,500 flight cycles or
                          cycles or 3,000 flight    3,000 flight hours,
                          hours since the last      whichever occurs first.
                          detailed inspection,
                          whichever occurs first;
                          or within 800 flight
                          cycles or 1,600 flight
                          hours after the effective
                          date of this AD,
                          whichever occurs first
A310-300 series airplanes Within 1,300 flight       1,300 flight cycles or
(short range)             cycles or 3,800 flight    3,800 flight hours,
                          hours since the last      whichever occurs first.
                          detailed inspection,
                          whichever occurs first;
                          or within 800 flight
                          cycles or 1,600 flight
                          hours after the effective
                          date of this AD,
                          whichever occurs first
A310-300 series airplanes Within 800 flight cycles  800 flight cycles or
(long range)              or 4,000 flight hours     4,000 flight hours,
                          since the last detailed   whichever occurs first.
                          inspection, whichever
                          occurs first; or within
                          800 flight cycles or
                          1,600 flight hours after
                          the effective date of
                          this AD, whichever occurs
                          first

Corrective Action

(g) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, prior to further flight, replace the pylon thrust and sideload fitting with a new fitting in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57- 0232, Revision 01 (for Model A300 series airplanes); A310-57-2075, Revision 01 (for Model A310 series airplanes); or A300-57-6079, Revision 02 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); all dated January 12, 1998; as applicable; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.

New Actions Required by This AD:

New Service Information

(h) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, use only the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 4 of this AD to do the repetitive detailed inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD and the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

     Table 4.--New Service Bulletins
(1) A300-57-0232, Revision 02, dated   A300 series airplanes.
February 21, 2000
(2) A300-57-6079, Revision 04, dated   A300-600 series airplanes.
February 21, 2000
(3) A310-57-2075, Revision 03, dated   A310 series airplanes.
December 1, 2006

(i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-6079, Revision 02, dated January 12, 1998, or Revision 03, dated October 25, 1999 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); A310-57-2075, Revision 01, dated January 12, 1998, or Revision 02, dated February 21, 2000 (for Model A310 series airplanes); or A300-57-0232, Revision 01, dated January 12, 1998 (for Model A300 series airplanes); are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.

[Page Number 34228]

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(j) 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. Send information to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Related Information

(k) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) airworthiness directive 2007- 0243, dated September 4, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 10, 2008.

Ali Bahrami,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. E8-13566 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Vol. 73, No. 117

14 CFR Part 39; [Docket No. FAA-2008-0657; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-296- AD]; RIN 2120-AA64

Proposed Rules