Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes, 44974-44980 [2017-20566]

Download as PDF 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PROPOSALS 44974 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.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 Amendment Number 11 Effective Date: January 7, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.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 Amendment Number 13 Effective Date: May 24, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on December 11, 2017.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 Amendment Number 14 Effective Date: April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed Amendment Number 14, on December 11, 2017.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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: 202–493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 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 http://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 http:// 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 http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion 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 http:// 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 http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 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 http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We 
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we 
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    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 http://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 http://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 http://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