Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes, 42652-42655 [2014-16535]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42652
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the action must
be accomplished using a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or
the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the
DOA-authorized signature.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(i) Related Information
AGENCY:
Refer to Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European
Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2013–0165, dated July 25, 2013, for
related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;
D=FAA-2014-0005.
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
(2) You must use this service information
as applicable to do the actions required by
this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310–29–2103,
dated December 21, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness
Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@
airbus.com; Internet https://www.airbus.com.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information
that is incorporated by reference at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://www.archives.
gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25,
2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
[FR Doc. 2014–15805 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jul 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2014–0004; Directorate
Identifier 2013–NM–143–AD; Amendment
39–17900; AD 2014–14–05]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A320–111, –211, –212,
and –231 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of broken struts of
the center wing box (CWB). This AD
requires a detailed inspection of the
CWB struts for cracking, and repair if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracked or broken
struts, which could result in strut failure
and consequent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.
DATES: This AD is effective August 27,
2014.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in this AD
as of August 27, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
FAA-2014-0004; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness
Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email account.airwortheas@airbus.com; Internet https://
www.airbus.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; telephone: 425–227–1405;
fax: 425–227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would
apply to certain Airbus Model A320–
111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 10, 2014 (79 FR
7596).
The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013–0149,
dated July 16, 2013 (referred to after this
as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the
MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition
for the specified products. The MCAI
states:
Two cases of broken Centre Wing Box
(CWB) struts have been reported on A320
aeroplanes. Investigation results indicated
that strut thickness in the crack initiation
area was lower than specified in the
production drawings. Only a limited batch of
aeroplanes is affected by this manufacturing
defect.
This condition, if not corrected, could
result in strut failure, reducing the residual
life of the remaining struts to below the
initial Design Service Goal, which would
deteriorate the structural integrity of the
aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this
[EASA] AD requires repetitive Detailed
Visual inspections (DVI) of the lower and
upper ends of the CWB struts to detect cracks
and, depending on findings, accomplishment
of associated corrective actions [repair].
You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;
D=FAA-2014-0004-0002.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. We
received no comments on the NPRM (79
FR 7596, February 10, 2014) or on the
determination of the cost to the public.
‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer’’
Paragraph in This AD
Since late 2006, we have included a
standard paragraph titled ‘‘Airworthy
Product’’ in all MCAI ADs in which the
FAA develops an AD based on a foreign
authority’s AD.
The MCAI or referenced service
information in an FAA AD often directs
the owner/operator to contact the
manufacturer for corrective actions,
such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy
Product paragraph allowed owners/
operators to use corrective actions
provided by the manufacturer if those
actions were FAA-approved. In
addition, the paragraph stated that any
actions approved by the State of Design
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Authority (or its delegated agent) are
considered to be FAA-approved.
In the NPRM (79 FR 7596, February
10, 2014), we proposed to prevent the
use of repairs that were not specifically
developed to correct the unsafe
condition, by requiring that the repair
approval provided by the State of
Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the
method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs
that are specifically developed and
approved to correct the unsafe
condition. In addition, we proposed to
change the phrase ‘‘its delegated agent’’
to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority
design organization approval (DOA), as
applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized
to approve required repairs for the
proposed AD.
No comments were provided to the
NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 10, 2014)
about these proposed changes. However,
a comment was provided for another
NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–
101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26,
2013), in which the commenter stated
the following: ‘‘The proposed wording,
being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are
acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed
during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.’’
This comment has made the FAA
aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the
Airworthy Product paragraph to allow
the owner/operator to use messages
provided by the manufacturer as
approval of deviations during the
accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product
paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the
manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated
actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the
requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified
unsafe condition and does not cover
deviations from other AD requirements.
However, deviations to AD-required
actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17,
and anyone may request the approval
for an alternative method of compliance
to the AD-required actions using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and
misinterpretation of the Airworthy
Product paragraph, we have changed
that paragraph and retitled it
‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer.’’ This
paragraph now clarifies that for any
requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer,
the action must be accomplished using
a method approved by the FAA, the
European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), or Airbus’s EASA DOA.
The Contacting the Manufacturer
paragraph also clarifies that, if approved
by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA
signature indicates that the data and
information contained in the document
are EASA-approved, which is also FAAapproved. Messages and other
information provided by the
manufacturer that do not contain the
DOA-authorized signature approval are
not EASA-approved, unless EASA
directly approves the manufacturer’s
message or other information.
This clarification does not remove
flexibility previously afforded by the
Airworthy Product paragraph.
Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never
intended for required actions. This is
also consistent with the
recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation
Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by
identifying those actions in
manufacturers’ service instructions that
are ‘‘Required for Compliance’’ with
ADs. We continue to work with
manufacturers to implement this
recommendation. But once we
determine that an action is required, any
deviation from the requirement must be
approved as an alternative method of
compliance.
Other commenters to the NPRM
discussed previously, Directorate
Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out
that in many cases the foreign
manufacturer’s service bulletin and the
foreign authority’s MCAI might have
been issued some time before the FAA
AD. Therefore, the DOA might have
42653
provided U.S. operators with an
approved repair, developed with full
awareness of the unsafe condition,
before the FAA AD is issued. Under
these circumstances, to comply with the
FAA AD, the operator would be
required to go back to the
manufacturer’s DOA and obtain a new
approval document, adding time and
expense to the compliance process with
no safety benefit.
Based on these comments, we
removed the requirement that the DAHprovided repair specifically refer to this
AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate
with affected DAHs and verify they are
prepared to implement means to ensure
that their repair approvals consider the
unsafe condition addressed in this AD.
Any such requirements will be adopted
through the normal AD rulemaking
process, including notice-and-comment
procedures, when appropriate. We also
have decided not to include a generic
reference to either the ‘‘delegated agent’’
or ‘‘DAH with State of Design Authority
design organization approval,’’ but
instead we have provided the specific
delegation approval granted by the State
of Design Authority for the DAH
throughout this AD.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety and the
public interest require adopting this AD
with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that
was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 7596,
February 10, 2014) for correcting the
unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden
upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 7596,
February 10, 2014).
We also determined that these changes
will not increase the economic burden
on any operator or increase the scope of
this AD.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 16
airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to
comply with this AD:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Parts cost
Cost per
product
Inspection ..........
12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 per inspection
cycle.
$0
$1,020
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jul 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
Cost on U.S. operators
$16,320 per inspection cycle.
42654
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
We have received no definitive data
that would enable us to provide cost
estimates for the on-condition action
specified in this AD.
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
This AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jul 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 airworthiness
directive (AD):
■
2014–14–05 Airbus: Amendment 39–17900;
Docket No. FAA–2014–0004; Directorate
Identifier 2013–NM–143–AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective August 27, 2014.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Airbus Model A320–
211, –212, and –231 airplanes, certificated in
any category, all manufacturer serial numbers
up to 0136 inclusive.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 57, Wings.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by reports of
broken struts of the center wing box (CWB)
on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct cracked or broken struts,
which could result in strut failure and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Repetitive Inspections
At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection of each strut of the CWB
for cracking, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320–57–1149, Revision 01,
dated February 12, 2013. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 16,800 flight cycles or 33,600 flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
(1) For airplanes on which the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD has not
been done as of the effective date of this AD:
Do the inspection at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii)
of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 31,700 total
flight cycles or 63,400 total flight hours since
first flight, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,250 flight cycles or 2,500
flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been
done as of the effective date of this AD: Do
the inspection within 16,800 flight cycles or
33,600 flight hours after the most recent
inspection, whichever occurs first.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(h) Repair
If any crack is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before
further flight, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus’s EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
(i) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for actions
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin
A320–57–1149, dated April 1, 2008, which is
not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(j) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356;
telephone: 425–227–1405; fax: 425–227–
1149. Information may be emailed to: 9ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov.
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) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the action must
be accomplished using a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or
the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the
DOA-authorized signature.
(k) Related Information
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013–0149, dated
July 16, 2013, for related information. This
MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/#
!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0004-0002.
(2) Service information identified in this
AD that is not incorporated by reference may
be viewed at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(IBR) of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
(2) You must use this service information
as applicable to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1149,
Revision 01, dated February 12, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness
Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@
airbus.com; Internet https://www.airbus.com.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information
that is incorporated by reference at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25,
2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–16535 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–1028; Directorate
Identifier 2013–NM–068–AD; Amendment
39–17901; AD 2014–14–06]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318–111 and –112
airplanes; Model A319–111, –112, –113,
–114, and –115 airplanes; Model A320–
111, –211, –212, and –214 airplanes;
and Model A321–111, –112, –211, –212,
and –213 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of broken aft
engine mount retainers. This AD
requires inspecting the aft engine mount
retainers for surface finish, and for
cracks and failure, and replacement if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of retainer brackets of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jul 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
the aft engine mount and consequent
loss of the locking feature of the nuts of
the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins
will result in the aft mount engine link
no longer being secured to the aft engine
mount.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
August 27, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this AD
as of August 27, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://www.
regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA2013-1028; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
For Airbus service information
identified in this AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond
Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
account.airworth-eas@airbus.com;
Internet https://www.airbus.com.
For Goodrich Corporation service
information identified in this AD,
contact Goodrich Corporation,
Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula
Vista, CA 91910–2098; telephone 619–
691–2719; email jan.lewis@
goodrich.com; Internet https://www.
goodrich.com/TechPubs.
You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 425–227–1221.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405;
fax 425–227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would
apply to all Airbus Model A318–111
and –112 airplanes; Model A319–111,
–112, –113, –114, and –115 airplanes;
Model A320–111, –211, –212, and –214
airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112,
–211, –212, and –213 airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 18, 2013 (78 FR
76572).
The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42655
Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013–0050,
dated March 5, 2013 (referred to after
this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the
MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition
for the specified products. The MCAI
states:
During in-service inspections, several aft
engine mount retainers, fitted on aeroplanes
equipped with CFM56–5/5B engines, have
been found broken.
The results of the investigations highlight
that two different types of surface finish have
been applied (respectively bright and dull
material finishes), and that dull finish
adversely affects the strength of the retainer
with regard to fatigue properties of the part.
The pins which attach the engine link to the
aft mount are secured by two nuts, which do
not have a self-locking feature; this function
is provided by the retainer brackets. In case
of failure of the retainer bracket, the locking
feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins
is lost; as a result, these nuts could
subsequently become loose.
In case of full loss of the nuts, there is the
potential to also lose the pins, in which case
the aft mount link will no longer be secured
to the aft engine mount. The same locking
feature is used for the three link assemblies
of the aft mount.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA]
AD requires a one-time detailed visual
inspection (DVI) of the aft engine mount to
identify the affected dull finish retainers [and
for cracks and failure] and replace these
[retainers] with serviceable retainers. This
[EASA] AD also prohibits installation of any
dull finish aft engine mount retainers.
You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;
D=FAA-2013-1028-0002.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. We
have considered the comment received.
The following presents the comment
received on the NPRM (78 FR 76572,
December 18, 2013) and the FAA’s
response to the comment.
Request To Add Certain Retainer
Brackets
Mr. Michael Raphael stated that
understanding of the issue (cracking or
failure of the aft engine mount retainer)
has changed since the preliminary
discovery with dull brackets, and that
bright brackets have been detected with
the same issue. Mr. Raphael explained
that vibration is the root cause, and the
dull surface finish (with pitting) is a
potential aggravating factor. Mr. Raphael
also stated that EASA and its airplane
type certificate holder are preparing a
‘‘phase 2 containment’’ that is based on
the latest technical findings.
We infer that the commenter wants us
to add brackets with the bright surface
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42652-42655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16535]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2014-0004; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-143-AD;
Amendment 39-17900; AD 2014-14-05]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of broken struts of the center wing box (CWB). This
AD requires a detailed inspection of the CWB struts for cracking, and
repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracked or broken struts, which could result in strut failure and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: This AD is effective August 27, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 27,
2014.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0004; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; Internet https://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405;
fax: 425-227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A320-
111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 7596).
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0149, dated July 16, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:
Two cases of broken Centre Wing Box (CWB) struts have been
reported on A320 aeroplanes. Investigation results indicated that
strut thickness in the crack initiation area was lower than
specified in the production drawings. Only a limited batch of
aeroplanes is affected by this manufacturing defect.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in strut failure,
reducing the residual life of the remaining struts to below the
initial Design Service Goal, which would deteriorate the structural
integrity of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive Detailed Visual inspections (DVI) of the lower and upper
ends of the CWB struts to detect cracks and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of associated corrective actions [repair].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0004-0002.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 10,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
[[Page 42653]]
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In the NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 10, 2014), we proposed to prevent
the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the
unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the
State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to
this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of
compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs
that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe
condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase ``its
delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State
of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable,
to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the
proposed AD.
No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 10,
2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013), in which the commenter stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a
method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
or Airbus's EASA DOA.
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
Other commenters to the NPRM discussed previously, Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out
that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the
foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the
FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an
approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition,
before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with
the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the
manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and
expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.
Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate. We also have
decided not to include a generic reference to either the ``delegated
agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design organization
approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific delegation
approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH
throughout this AD.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 10, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 10, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic
burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per
Action Labor cost Parts cost product Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................... 12 work-hours x $85 per hour = $0 $1,020 $16,320 per inspection cycle.
$1,020 per inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42654]]
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition action specified in this AD.
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
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2014-14-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-17900; Docket No. FAA-2014-0004;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-143-AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective August 27, 2014.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers up to 0136 inclusive.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by reports of broken struts of the center
wing box (CWB) on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracked or broken struts, which could result in
strut failure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Repetitive Inspections
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of each strut of the CWB for
cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1149, Revision 01, dated February
12, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 16,800 flight cycles or 33,600 flight hours, whichever occurs
first.
(1) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this
AD: Do the inspection at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 31,700 total flight cycles or
63,400 total flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs
first.
(ii) Within 1,250 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do
the inspection within 16,800 flight cycles or 33,600 flight hours
after the most recent inspection, whichever occurs first.
(h) Repair
If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
(i) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1149, dated
April 1, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(j) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be
emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 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) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(k) Related Information
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0149, dated July 16, 2013,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-
2014-0004-0002.
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference
[[Page 42655]]
(IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1149, Revision 01, dated
February 12, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; Internet https://www.airbus.com.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-16535 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
