Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes, 44974-44980 [2017-20566]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44974
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed
Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, on
December 11, 2017.
Amendment Number 10, Revision 1,
Effective Date: April 25, 2017.
Renewed Amendment Number 10,
Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11,
2017.
Amendment Number 11 Effective
Date: January 7, 2014, superseded by
Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on
April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed
Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on
December 11, 2017.
Amendment Number 11, Revision 1,
Effective Date: April 25, 2017.
Renewed Amendment Number 11,
Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11,
2017.
Amendment Number 12 Effective
Date: Amendment not issued by the
NRC.
Amendment Number 13 Effective
Date: May 24, 2014, superseded by
Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on
April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed
Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on
December 11, 2017.
Amendment Number 13, Revision 1,
Effective Date: April 25, 2017.
Renewed Amendment Number 13,
Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11,
2017.
Amendment Number 14 Effective
Date: April 25, 2017, superseded by
Renewed Amendment Number 14, on
December 11, 2017.
Renewed Amendment Number 14
Effective Date: December 11, 2017.
SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis
Report for the Standardized NUHOMS®
Horizontal Modular Storage System for
Irradiated Nuclear Fuel.
Docket Number: 72–1004.
Certificate Expiration Date: January
23, 2015.
Renewed Certificate Expiration Date:
January 23, 2055.
Model Number: NUHOMS®–24P,
–24PHB, –24PTH, –32PT, –32PTH1,
–37PTH, –52B, –61BT, –61BTH, and
–69BTH.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day
of September, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick D. Brown,
Acting Executive Director of Operations.
[FR Doc. 2017–20709 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2016–9074; Product
Identifier 2016–NM–097–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
We are revising an earlier
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
for all Airbus Model A318–111 and
–112 airplanes; Model A319–111, –112,
–113, –114, and –115 airplanes; Model
A320–211, –212, and –214 airplanes;
and Model A321–111, –112, –211, –212,
and –213 airplanes. This action revises
the NPRM by expanding the list of
affected engine fan cowl door (FCD) part
numbers and adding Airbus Model
A320–216 airplanes to the applicability.
We are proposing this Airworthiness
Directive (AD) to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Since these
actions impose an additional burden
over those proposed in the NPRM, we
are reopening the comment period to
allow the public the chance to comment
on these proposed changes.
DATES: The comment period for the
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR
65980), is reopened.
We must receive comments on this
SNPRM by November 13, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office–EIAS, 1 Rond
Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–
9074; 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:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356;
telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–
1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2016–9074; Product Identifier
2016–NM–097–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 https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued an 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 A320–211, –212, and –214
airplanes, and Model A321–111, –112,
–211, –212, and –213 airplanes. The
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR
65980) (‘‘the NPRM’’). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of engine FCD
losses on airplanes equipped with
CFM56 engines due to operator failure
to close the FCD during ground
operations. The NPRM proposed to
require modification and reidentification, or replacement, of certain
FCDs. The NPRM also proposed to
require installation of a placard.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM, the
European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
Union, issued AD 2016–0257, dated
December 16, 2016 (referred to after this
as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the
MCAI’’). The MCAI added part number
238–0301–509 to the list of affected
FCDs. In addition, we have certified
Airbus Model A320–216 airplanes,
which are also affected by the identified
unsafe condition. Therefore, we have
added Airbus Model A320–216
airplanes to the applicability of this
SNPRM.
EASA has issued the MCAI to correct
an unsafe condition for all Airbus
Model A318–111 and –112 airplanes;
Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, and
–115 airplanes; Model A320–211, –212,
–214, and –216 airplanes; and Model
A321–111, –112, –211, –212, and –213
airplanes. The MCAI states:
Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses were reported
on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56
engines. Investigation results confirmed that
in all cases the fan cowls were opened prior
to the flight and were not correctly resecured. During the pre-flight inspection, it
was then not detected that the FCD[s] were
not properly latched.
This condition, if not detected and
corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of a
FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the
aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the
ground.
Prompted by these events, new FCD front
latch and keeper assembly were developed,
having a specific key necessary to un-latch
the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless
the FCD front latch is safely closed. The key,
after removal, must be stowed in the flight
deck at a specific location, as instructed in
the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
Applicable Flight Crew Operating Manuals
have been amended accordingly. After
modification, the FCD is identified with a
different Part Number (P/N). Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A320–71–1068 to
provide the modification instructions.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016–0069
to require modification and re-identification
of [affected] FCD[s] [or replacement of
affected FCDs].
After that [EASA] AD was published, FCD
P/N 238–0301–509 was identified as missing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
44975
in the list of affected FCD P/N[s] provided in
the [EASA] AD.
For the reasons described above, this
[EASA] AD retains the requirement of EASA
AD 2016–0069, which is superseded, and
expands the list of affected FCD P/N[s].
However, the cost analysis in AD
rulemaking actions typically does not
include maintenance or incidental costs.
We have not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–
9074.
Requests To Revise the Costs of
Compliance
Request To Change the Compliance
Time for the Modification
American Airlines requested that the
compliance time for the modification be
changed from 35 months to 48 months.
American Airlines stated that more time
is necessary due to the size of its fleet
and the lead time to obtain parts.
We do not agree with the commenter’s
request to extend the compliance time.
In developing an appropriate
compliance time for this action, we
considered the safety implications, parts
availability, and normal maintenance
schedules for the timely
accomplishment of the modification. In
consideration of these items, as well as
the reports of FCD losses in service, we
have determined that a 35-month
compliance time will ensure an
acceptable level of safety and allow the
modifications to be done during
scheduled maintenance intervals for
most affected operators. In addition, we
find that 35 months provides sufficient
time to order parts and accomplish the
required modification. However, under
the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this
proposed AD, we will consider requests
for approval of an extension of the
compliance time if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that the
change would provide an acceptable
level of safety. We have not changed
this proposed AD in this regard.
American Airlines commented that
the parts cost shown in the proposed
AD (in the NPRM) is for only one engine
instead of two.
We agree that the costs specified in
the Costs of Compliance section of the
proposed AD (in the NPRM) were only
for one engine. We have revised the
Costs of Compliance section in this
SNPRM to show the cost for two
engines.
American Airlines also requested that
the cost of maintenance activities
associated with the service
information—e.g., re-rigging all cowl
latches during embodiment, or other
recording, tracking, and supply chain
costs—be included in the Costs of
Compliance section of the NPRM.
We do not agree with the commenter’s
request. We recognize that, in
accomplishing the requirements of any
AD, operators might incur additional
maintenance or ‘‘incidental’’ costs in
addition to the ‘‘direct’’ costs that are
reflected in the cost analysis presented
in the preamble of a proposed AD.
Request To Be Specific About Which
FCDs Require Modification
Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that
we specify which FCDs need to be
modified by listing the FCD serial
numbers (S/N) in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the
NPRM). Paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of
the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would
mandate reworking all FCDs on the
affected aircraft. Delta stated that
Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071–
163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016,
specifies which FCDs require
modification by identifying the
applicable serial numbers. Delta stated
that FCDs with serial numbers not listed
in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071–
163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016,
do not require modification.
We disagree with the commenter’s
request. The State of Design Authority
(EASA) and Airbus have determined the
scope of discrepant FCD part numbers,
which are identified in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD
as ‘‘old P/N.’’ The objective of the
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin
A320–71–1068, Revision 01, dated April
28, 2016. This service information
describes procedures for modifying the
left-hand and right-hand FCDs on
engines 1 and 2; installing a placard;
and re-identifying both the left-hand
and right-hand FCDs with a new part
number. This service information is
reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business
or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
participate in developing this proposed
AD. We considered the comments
received.
Support for the NPRM
The Air Line Pilots Association,
International stated that it supports the
NPRM.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
44976
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071–
163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016,
is to provide instructions for
modification. Delta has not provided
any substantiation in support of its
suggestion that the serial numbers
identified in the proposed AD (in the
NPRM) that are not listed in Goodrich
Service Bulletin RA32071–163, Revision
3, dated October 11, 2016, are not
affected by the identified unsafe
condition. We have not changed this
proposed AD in this regard.
Request To Remove Requirement To
Re-Identify FCDs After Modification
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Delta requested that paragraph (g)(3)
of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be
removed. Delta indicated that the
proposed AD would mandate that the
modified FCD be re-identified as
specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g),
(h), (i), and (k) of this AD. Delta noted
that this information and reidentification is already specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A320–71–1068,
Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016; and
Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071–
163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016.
Delta indicated that table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h) (i) and (k) of the
proposed AD is a duplication of the reidentification requirement in paragraph
(g)(1) of the proposed AD, and lends
itself to confusion and errors. Delta
proposed to delete the requirement in
paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in
the NPRM). Alternatively, Delta
recommended that paragraph (g)(3) of
the proposed AD (in the NPRM) refer to
step 3.I.H. in Goodrich Service Bulletin
RA32071–163, Revision 3, dated
October 11, 2016, for the correct reidentification requirement.
We do not agree to remove paragraph
(g)(3) of the proposed AD or refer to
Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071–
163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016.
However, we do agree to clarify
paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD.
We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this
proposed AD to clarify that modified
parts as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of
this proposed AD are re-identified to the
correct ‘‘new’’ part number identified in
table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k)
of this proposed AD.
Requests To Remove Requirement for
Placard
Delta requested that we remove the
requirement for installing a placard on
the flight deck stowage compartment
area to note the location of the keys to
the FCD latches. American Airlines and
Delta both indicated that the placard
and the location of the keys are not
safety-related.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
We disagree with the commenter’s
request. Installation of the placard is
designed to ensure that the key is
stowed in a particular location onboard
the airplane and can be consistently
retrieved from that location when
needed. An operator may apply for
approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) using the
procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1)
of this AD, provided it can be shown
that there is an alternative means to
ensure the key is stowed onboard the
airplane in a constantly retrievable and
accessible location.
Request To Remove Reference to
Certain Instructions for Installing
Replacement FCDs
Delta requested that the alternative
action in paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of the
proposed AD (in the NPRM) to install
replacement FCDs using instructions
‘‘. . . approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus’s EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA),’’ be removed from the
proposed AD. Delta noted that neither
the service information nor the MCAI
indicate any airworthiness concerns
with the FCD installation. Delta stated
that the on-wing work does not involve
checking or re-installing the FCD; it
involves only replacing the latch
assembly. Delta requested that the
proposed AD either specify the
airworthiness concern regarding the
procedure or provide FAA-approved
instructions.
We disagree with the commenter’s
request. Installation of a new part using
procedures that are not approved might
result in an inadvertent addition of an
unsafe condition. We have coordinated
with Airbus and EASA and agreed that
the installation must be done in
accordance with the approved methods
specified in paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of
this proposed AD.
Request To Allow Modification of
Spare FCDs Using Goodrich Service
Bulletin
American Airlines requested that the
proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised
to allow modification of spare FCDs in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Goodrich Service
Bulletin RA32071–163, Revision 3,
dated October 11, 2016, when an FCD
is modified while off the airplane.
American Airlines indicated that the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320–71–1068,
Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016,
contain procedures that are only
applicable to FCDs that are installed on
an airplane.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We acknowledge the commenter’s
request and have determined that
clarification is necessary. Paragraph (h)
of this proposed AD allows installation
of replacement parts that are acceptable
for compliance with paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(3) of this proposed AD using
methods other than Airbus Service
Bulletin A320–71–1068, Revision 01,
dated April 28, 2016, that are approved
by the Manager, International Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. We have
not changed this SNPRM in this regard.
Request To Allow Flight With
Alternative Configuration
Delta noted that paragraph (k) of the
proposed AD would prohibit installing
any FCD that has an old part number
after the AD effective date. Delta noted
that it is possible to have an airplane on
which only one FCD is removed for
maintenance. Delta requested that we
clarify whether it is acceptable to have
an aircraft with a mix of old and new
part numbers on the FCDs, prior to the
compliance deadline.
We agree to provide clarification. We
have revised the requirement in
paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to
match the corresponding requirement in
the EASA AD. If an ‘‘old’’ part is
installed prior to the effective date of
this AD, then after modification of this
part to a ‘‘new’’ part, installation of an
‘‘old’’ part is prohibited as specified in
paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. If
a ‘‘new’’ part is installed, then as of the
effective date of this AD, installation of
an ‘‘old’’ part is prohibited as specified
in paragraph (k)(2) of this proposed AD.
These requirements apply to both
engines.
Requests To Change Parts Installation
Prohibition
American Airlines, Virgin America,
and Delta requested that the parts
installation prohibition in paragraph (k)
of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be
changed to allow affected FCDs to be
installed on airplanes up to 35 months
after the effective date of the AD. The
commenters noted that FCDs are
routinely removed for maintenance, and
stated that the proposed AD (in the
NPRM) would require any removed FCD
with an ‘‘old’’ part number to be
modified immediately. The commenters
indicated that this requirement was
overly restrictive when compared to the
MCAI requirements or the compliance
time specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, which requires modifying FCDs
within 35 months after the effective date
of this AD.
We agree to provide clarification. As
stated previously in the comment
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
response to ‘‘Request To Allow Flight
With Alternative Configuration,’’ we
have revised the requirement in
paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to
match the corresponding requirement in
the EASA AD.
Requests To Allow Use of Later
Revisions of Service Information
American Airlines and Delta
requested that the proposed AD (in the
NPRM) be revised to allow the use of
later revisions of service information.
American Airlines indicated that the
MCAI states: ‘‘The use of later approved
revisions of this document is acceptable
for compliance with the requirements of
this AD.’’
We do not concur with the
commenters’ request. We cannot refer to
any document that does not yet exist. In
general terms, we are required by the
Office of the Federal Register’s (OFR)
regulations to either publish the service
document contents as part of the actual
AD language; or submit the service
document to the OFR for approval as
‘‘referenced’’ material, in which case we
may only refer to such material in the
text of an AD. We may refer to the
service document in the AD only if the
OFR approved it for ‘‘incorporation by
reference.’’ See 1 CFR part 51.
To allow operators to use later
revisions of the referenced document
(issued after publication of the AD),
either we must revise the AD to
reference specific later revisions, or
operators must request approval to use
later revisions as an AMOC with this
AD under the provisions of paragraph
(n)(1) of this AD.
Request To Use an Alternative
Procedure for Modifying FCDs
Allegiant Air stated it has developed
a procedure that requires a log entry
each time an FCD is opened or closed.
Allegiant Air noted that all of its FCD
latches are painted bright orange in
contrast to the blue color of the FCDs,
which makes it easier for the crew to
detect any unlatched doors and take
corrective action. Allegiant Air
suggested that these methods are
sufficient to prevent any events caused
by improperly closed and latched FCDs.
Allegiant Air suggested that a
modification to the FCDs is unnecessary
if this procedure is followed.
We disagree with the commenter’s
request. EASA, as the State of Design
Authority for Airbus products, has
determined after conducting a risk
analysis that an unsafe condition exists.
EASA’s analysis took into consideration
the in-service events in the worldwide
fleet that occurred despite some of the
design or maintenance improvement
methods that were implemented,
including the ones noted by Allegiant
Air. We agree with EASA’s decision to
mitigate the risk by mandating a new
design solution, which makes it
apparent to the flight crew on a preflight walk-around that an FCD is not
latched. Although the commenter’s
specific proposal is not considered
44977
acceptable to address the identified
unsafe condition, operators may request
approval of an AMOC using the
procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1)
of this AD, provided they can show they
have an alternative means to ensure the
FCD is properly closed and locked. We
have not changed this SNPRM in this
regard.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of This SNPRM
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 these same
type designs.
Certain changes described above
expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period
to provide additional opportunity for
the public to comment on this SNPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this SNPRM affects
400 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to
comply with this SNPRM:
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Labor cost
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Modification, placard installation, and re-identification (or
replacement) of FCD.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Parts cost
Up to 11 work-hours × $85
per hour = $935.
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
This proposed AD is issued in
accordance with authority delegated by
the Executive Director, Aircraft
Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance
with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance
and Airworthiness Division, but during
this transition period, the Executive
Director has delegated the authority to
issue ADs applicable to transport
category airplanes to the Director of the
System Oversight Division.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cost per product
$9,730
$10,665 (for two
engines).
Cost on U.S.
operators
$4,266,000
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
44978
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.
Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2016–9074; Product
Identifier 2016–NM–097–AD.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
(b) Affected ADs
None.
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
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):
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by November
13, 2017.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes,
certificated in any category, identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318–111 and –112
airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319–111, –112, –113,
–114, and –115 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320–211, –212, –214
and –216 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321–111, –112, –211,
–212, and –213 airplanes.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 71, Powerplant.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by reports of
engine fan cowl door (FCD) losses on
airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due
to operator failure to close the FCD during
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ground operations. We are issuing this AD to
prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and
possible consequent damage to the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Modification of Affected FCDs
Within 35 months after the effective date
of this AD, accomplish concurrently the
actions in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3)
of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320–71–1068, Revision 01,
dated April 28, 2016.
(1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand
FCDs on engines 1 and 2 that have an old
part number (‘‘Old P/N’’), as applicable, as
specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i),
and (k) of this AD.
(2) Install a placard on the box located at
the bottom of the 120-volt unit (120 VU)
panel, or at the bottom of the coat stowage,
as applicable to airplane configuration.
(3) Re-identify the modified left-hand and
right-hand FCDs with the new part number
(‘‘New P/N’’), as applicable, as specified in
table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of
this AD.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
44979
Table 1 to Paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD- Fan Cowl Door Part Number
(PIN) Change
Old PIN
238-0301-501
238-0301-503
238-0301-505
238-0301-507
238-0301-509
238-0301-511
238-0301-513
238-0301-515
238-0301-517
238-0301-519
238-0301-521
238-0301-523
238-0301-525
238-0301-527
238-0301-529
238-0301-531
238-0302-501
238-0302-503
238-0302-505
238-0302-509
238-0302-511
238-0302-513
238-0302-515
238-0302-517
238-0302-519
238-0302-521
238-0302-523
238-0302-525
238-0302-527
238-0302-529
238-0302-531
238-0302-533
238-0302-535
238-0302-537
238-0302-539
238-0302-541
238-0302-543
238-0302-545
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Right-hand side- CFM56-5A engines
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
New PIN
238M0301-501
238M0301-503
238M0301-505
238M0301-507
238M0301-509
238M0301-511
238M0301-513
238M0301-515
238M0301-517
238M0301-519
238M0301-521
238M0301-523
238M0301-525
238M0301-527
238-0301-533
238-0301-535
238M0302-501
238M0302-503
238M0302-505
238M0302-509
238M0302-511
238M0302-513
238M0302-515
238M0302-517
238M0302-519
238M0302-521
238M0302-523
238M0302-525
238M0302-527
238M0302-529
238M0302-531
238M0302-533
238M0302-535
238M0302-537
238-0302-547
238-0302-549
238-0302-551
238-0302-553
27SEP1
EP27SE17.013</GPH>
Door Position
Left-hand side- CFM56-5A engines
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(h) Optional Replacement of Affected FCDs
With New Door Design
Replacing the FCDs having a P/N listed as
‘‘Old P/N’’ in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i), and (k) of this AD with the FCDs having
the corresponding P/Ns listed as ‘‘New P/N’’
in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k)
of this AD is acceptable for compliance with
the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(3) of this AD. The replacement must be
done in accordance with instructions
approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA).
(i) Compliance Information for Airplanes on
Which Airbus Modification 157517 Is
Embodied
Accomplishment of Airbus modification
157517 on an airplane in production is
acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3)
of this AD, provided that no FCD having a
part number identified as ‘‘Old P/N’’ in table
1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD
is installed on that airplane.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
(j) Compliance Information for Airplanes on
Which Airbus Modification 157519 or
Modification 157521 Is Embodied
Accomplishment of Airbus modification
157519 or modification 157521 on an
airplane in production is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(k) Parts Installation Prohibition
(1) For any airplane with any FCD installed
having a P/N identified as ‘‘Old P/N’’ in table
1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD
as of the effective date of this AD: No person
may install on an airplane a part number
identified as ‘‘Old P/N’’ in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD after
accomplishing the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this AD on that airplane.
(2) For any airplane with only FCDs
installed having P/Ns that are identified as
‘‘New P/N’’ in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
of this AD: No person may install on any
airplane a part number identified as ‘‘Old P/
N’’ in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and
(k) of this AD as of the effective date of this
AD.
(l) Installation of Approved Parts
Installation on an airplane of a right-hand
or left-hand FCD having a part number
approved after the effective date of this AD
is acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3)
of this AD for that airplane only, provided
the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1)
and (l)(2) of this AD are met.
(1) The part number must be approved by
the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus’s EASA DOA.
(2) The FCD installation must be
accomplished in accordance with airplane
modification instructions approved by the
Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus’s EASA DOA.
(m) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for actions
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD,
if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service
Bulletin A320–71–1068, Revision 00, dated
December 18, 2015.
(n) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, 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 Section, send it
to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (o)(2) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOCREQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(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 Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA;
or Airbus’s EASA DOA. If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOAauthorized signature.
(o) Related Information
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016–0257 dated
December 16, 2016, for related information.
This MCAI may be found in the AD docket
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA–2016–9074.
(2) For more information about this AD,
contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer
International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–
227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.
(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.
You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 19, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–20566 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
EP27SE17.014</GPH>
44980
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44974-44980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20566]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2016-9074; Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-
111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -
214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213
airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by expanding the list of
affected engine fan cowl door (FCD) part numbers and adding Airbus
Model A320-216 airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this
Airworthiness Directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these
products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those
proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the
public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR 65980), is reopened.
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 13, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, 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 Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9074; 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-
1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9074;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued an 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 A320-211, -212,
and -214 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213
airplanes. The
[[Page 44975]]
NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR
65980) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by reports of engine FCD
losses on airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator failure
to close the FCD during ground operations. The NPRM proposed to require
modification and re-identification, or replacement, of certain FCDs.
The NPRM also proposed to require installation of a placard.
Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued AD 2016-0257, dated December 16, 2016 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''). The MCAI added part number 238-0301-509 to the list of
affected FCDs. In addition, we have certified Airbus Model A320-216
airplanes, which are also affected by the identified unsafe condition.
Therefore, we have added Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes to the
applicability of this SNPRM.
EASA has issued the MCAI to correct an unsafe condition for all
Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -
114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, and -216
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
The MCAI states:
Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses were reported on aeroplanes equipped
with CFM56 engines. Investigation results confirmed that in all
cases the fan cowls were opened prior to the flight and were not
correctly re-secured. During the pre-flight inspection, it was then
not detected that the FCD[s] were not properly latched.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight loss of a FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane
and/or injury to persons on the ground.
Prompted by these events, new FCD front latch and keeper
assembly were developed, having a specific key necessary to un-latch
the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless the FCD front latch is
safely closed. The key, after removal, must be stowed in the flight
deck at a specific location, as instructed in the applicable
Aircraft Maintenance Manual. Applicable Flight Crew Operating
Manuals have been amended accordingly. After modification, the FCD
is identified with a different Part Number (P/N). Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A320-71-1068 to provide the modification
instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0069 to require
modification and re-identification of [affected] FCD[s] [or
replacement of affected FCDs].
After that [EASA] AD was published, FCD P/N 238-0301-509 was
identified as missing in the list of affected FCD P/N[s] provided in
the [EASA] AD.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirement of EASA AD 2016-0069, which is superseded, and expands
the list of affected FCD P/N[s].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9074.
Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated
April 28, 2016. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2;
installing a placard; and re-identifying both the left-hand and right-
hand FCDs with a new part number. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.
Support for the NPRM
The Air Line Pilots Association, International stated that it
supports the NPRM.
Requests To Revise the Costs of Compliance
American Airlines commented that the parts cost shown in the
proposed AD (in the NPRM) is for only one engine instead of two.
We agree that the costs specified in the Costs of Compliance
section of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) were only for one engine. We
have revised the Costs of Compliance section in this SNPRM to show the
cost for two engines.
American Airlines also requested that the cost of maintenance
activities associated with the service information--e.g., re-rigging
all cowl latches during embodiment, or other recording, tracking, and
supply chain costs--be included in the Costs of Compliance section of
the NPRM.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. We recognize that, in
accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators might incur
additional maintenance or ``incidental'' costs in addition to the
``direct'' costs that are reflected in the cost analysis presented in
the preamble of a proposed AD. However, the cost analysis in AD
rulemaking actions typically does not include maintenance or incidental
costs. We have not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Change the Compliance Time for the Modification
American Airlines requested that the compliance time for the
modification be changed from 35 months to 48 months. American Airlines
stated that more time is necessary due to the size of its fleet and the
lead time to obtain parts.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the
compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and
normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the
modification. In consideration of these items, as well as the reports
of FCD losses in service, we have determined that a 35-month compliance
time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the
modifications to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for
most affected operators. In addition, we find that 35 months provides
sufficient time to order parts and accomplish the required
modification. However, under the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this
proposed AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of
the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate
that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have
not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
Request To Be Specific About Which FCDs Require Modification
Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we specify which FCDs need
to be modified by listing the FCD serial numbers (S/N) in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would mandate reworking all
FCDs on the affected aircraft. Delta stated that Goodrich Service
Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, specifies
which FCDs require modification by identifying the applicable serial
numbers. Delta stated that FCDs with serial numbers not listed in
Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11,
2016, do not require modification.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The State of Design
Authority (EASA) and Airbus have determined the scope of discrepant FCD
part numbers, which are identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i), and (k) of this AD as ``old P/N.'' The objective of the
[[Page 44976]]
Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11,
2016, is to provide instructions for modification. Delta has not
provided any substantiation in support of its suggestion that the
serial numbers identified in the proposed AD (in the NPRM) that are not
listed in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated
October 11, 2016, are not affected by the identified unsafe condition.
We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
Request To Remove Requirement To Re-Identify FCDs After Modification
Delta requested that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the
NPRM) be removed. Delta indicated that the proposed AD would mandate
that the modified FCD be re-identified as specified in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD. Delta noted that this
information and re-identification is already specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016; and
Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11,
2016. Delta indicated that table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h) (i) and (k)
of the proposed AD is a duplication of the re-identification
requirement in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD, and lends itself to
confusion and errors. Delta proposed to delete the requirement in
paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Alternatively, Delta
recommended that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)
refer to step 3.I.H. in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision
3, dated October 11, 2016, for the correct re-identification
requirement.
We do not agree to remove paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD or
refer to Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated
October 11, 2016. However, we do agree to clarify paragraph (g)(3) of
this proposed AD. We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD
to clarify that modified parts as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this
proposed AD are re-identified to the correct ``new'' part number
identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this
proposed AD.
Requests To Remove Requirement for Placard
Delta requested that we remove the requirement for installing a
placard on the flight deck stowage compartment area to note the
location of the keys to the FCD latches. American Airlines and Delta
both indicated that the placard and the location of the keys are not
safety-related.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Installation of the
placard is designed to ensure that the key is stowed in a particular
location onboard the airplane and can be consistently retrieved from
that location when needed. An operator may apply for approval of an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified
in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, provided it can be shown that there is
an alternative means to ensure the key is stowed onboard the airplane
in a constantly retrievable and accessible location.
Request To Remove Reference to Certain Instructions for Installing
Replacement FCDs
Delta requested that the alternative action in paragraphs (h) and
(l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to install replacement FCDs
using instructions ``. . . approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA),'' be removed from the proposed AD.
Delta noted that neither the service information nor the MCAI indicate
any airworthiness concerns with the FCD installation. Delta stated that
the on-wing work does not involve checking or re-installing the FCD; it
involves only replacing the latch assembly. Delta requested that the
proposed AD either specify the airworthiness concern regarding the
procedure or provide FAA-approved instructions.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Installation of a new
part using procedures that are not approved might result in an
inadvertent addition of an unsafe condition. We have coordinated with
Airbus and EASA and agreed that the installation must be done in
accordance with the approved methods specified in paragraphs (h) and
(l)(2) of this proposed AD.
Request To Allow Modification of Spare FCDs Using Goodrich Service
Bulletin
American Airlines requested that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be
revised to allow modification of spare FCDs in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163,
Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, when an FCD is modified while off
the airplane. American Airlines indicated that the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01,
dated April 28, 2016, contain procedures that are only applicable to
FCDs that are installed on an airplane.
We acknowledge the commenter's request and have determined that
clarification is necessary. Paragraph (h) of this proposed AD allows
installation of replacement parts that are acceptable for compliance
with paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this proposed AD using methods
other than Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated
April 28, 2016, that are approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.
Request To Allow Flight With Alternative Configuration
Delta noted that paragraph (k) of the proposed AD would prohibit
installing any FCD that has an old part number after the AD effective
date. Delta noted that it is possible to have an airplane on which only
one FCD is removed for maintenance. Delta requested that we clarify
whether it is acceptable to have an aircraft with a mix of old and new
part numbers on the FCDs, prior to the compliance deadline.
We agree to provide clarification. We have revised the requirement
in paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to match the corresponding
requirement in the EASA AD. If an ``old'' part is installed prior to
the effective date of this AD, then after modification of this part to
a ``new'' part, installation of an ``old'' part is prohibited as
specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. If a ``new'' part is
installed, then as of the effective date of this AD, installation of an
``old'' part is prohibited as specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this
proposed AD. These requirements apply to both engines.
Requests To Change Parts Installation Prohibition
American Airlines, Virgin America, and Delta requested that the
parts installation prohibition in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in
the NPRM) be changed to allow affected FCDs to be installed on
airplanes up to 35 months after the effective date of the AD. The
commenters noted that FCDs are routinely removed for maintenance, and
stated that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would require any removed FCD
with an ``old'' part number to be modified immediately. The commenters
indicated that this requirement was overly restrictive when compared to
the MCAI requirements or the compliance time specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD, which requires modifying FCDs within 35 months after the
effective date of this AD.
We agree to provide clarification. As stated previously in the
comment
[[Page 44977]]
response to ``Request To Allow Flight With Alternative Configuration,''
we have revised the requirement in paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to
match the corresponding requirement in the EASA AD.
Requests To Allow Use of Later Revisions of Service Information
American Airlines and Delta requested that the proposed AD (in the
NPRM) be revised to allow the use of later revisions of service
information. American Airlines indicated that the MCAI states: ``The
use of later approved revisions of this document is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of this AD.''
We do not concur with the commenters' request. We cannot refer to
any document that does not yet exist. In general terms, we are required
by the Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) regulations to either
publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD
language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as
``referenced'' material, in which case we may only refer to such
material in the text of an AD. We may refer to the service document in
the AD only if the OFR approved it for ``incorporation by reference.''
See 1 CFR part 51.
To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced
document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise
the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request
approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with this AD under the
provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
Request To Use an Alternative Procedure for Modifying FCDs
Allegiant Air stated it has developed a procedure that requires a
log entry each time an FCD is opened or closed. Allegiant Air noted
that all of its FCD latches are painted bright orange in contrast to
the blue color of the FCDs, which makes it easier for the crew to
detect any unlatched doors and take corrective action. Allegiant Air
suggested that these methods are sufficient to prevent any events
caused by improperly closed and latched FCDs. Allegiant Air suggested
that a modification to the FCDs is unnecessary if this procedure is
followed.
We disagree with the commenter's request. EASA, as the State of
Design Authority for Airbus products, has determined after conducting a
risk analysis that an unsafe condition exists. EASA's analysis took
into consideration the in-service events in the worldwide fleet that
occurred despite some of the design or maintenance improvement methods
that were implemented, including the ones noted by Allegiant Air. We
agree with EASA's decision to mitigate the risk by mandating a new
design solution, which makes it apparent to the flight crew on a pre-
flight walk-around that an FCD is not latched. Although the commenter's
specific proposal is not considered acceptable to address the
identified unsafe condition, operators may request approval of an AMOC
using the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, provided
they can show they have an alternative means to ensure the FCD is
properly closed and locked. We have not changed this SNPRM in this
regard.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM
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 these
same type designs.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this SNPRM affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this SNPRM:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification, placard Up to 11 work-hours $9,730 $10,665 (for two engines) $4,266,000
installation, and re- x $85 per hour =
identification (or replacement) $935.
of FCD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.
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
[[Page 44978]]
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9074; Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by November 13, 2017.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD,
all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214 and -216 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by reports of engine fan cowl door (FCD)
losses on airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator
failure to close the FCD during ground operations. We are issuing
this AD to prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible
consequent damage to the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Modification of Affected FCDs
Within 35 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish
concurrently the actions in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28,
2016.
(1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2
that have an old part number (``Old P/N''), as applicable, as
specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this
AD.
(2) Install a placard on the box located at the bottom of the
120-volt unit (120 VU) panel, or at the bottom of the coat stowage,
as applicable to airplane configuration.
(3) Re-identify the modified left-hand and right-hand FCDs with
the new part number (``New P/N''), as applicable, as specified in
table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.
[[Page 44979]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE17.013
[[Page 44980]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE17.014
(h) Optional Replacement of Affected FCDs With New Door Design
Replacing the FCDs having a P/N listed as ``Old P/N'' in table 1
to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD with the FCDs having
the corresponding P/Ns listed as ``New P/N'' in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of
this AD. The replacement must be done in accordance with
instructions approved by the Manager, International Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(i) Compliance Information for Airplanes on Which Airbus Modification
157517 Is Embodied
Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157517 on an airplane in
production is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD, provided that no FCD having
a part number identified as ``Old P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs
(g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is installed on that airplane.
(j) Compliance Information for Airplanes on Which Airbus Modification
157519 or Modification 157521 Is Embodied
Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157519 or modification
157521 on an airplane in production is acceptable for compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(k) Parts Installation Prohibition
(1) For any airplane with any FCD installed having a P/N
identified as ``Old P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i),
and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No person
may install on an airplane a part number identified as ``Old P/N''
in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD after
accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD on that
airplane.
(2) For any airplane with only FCDs installed having P/Ns that
are identified as ``New P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No
person may install on any airplane a part number identified as ``Old
P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as
of the effective date of this AD.
(l) Installation of Approved Parts
Installation on an airplane of a right-hand or left-hand FCD
having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(3) of this AD for that airplane only, provided the
conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD are
met.
(1) The part number must be approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA.
(2) The FCD installation must be accomplished in accordance with
airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA.
(m) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-71-1068, Revision 00, dated December 18, 2015.
(n) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 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 Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD. 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.
(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
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
(o) Related Information
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0257 dated December 16,
2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9074.
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(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. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 19, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-20566 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
