62928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposed 

determination, DOE is particularly 

interested in receiving comments and 

views of interested parties concerning 

the following issues: 

1. The HID lamps selected for and 

excluded from analysis of economic 

justification for standards; 

2. The technology options analyzed 

and in particular the elimination of 

sapphire arc tubes and starting method 

as technology option(s); 

3. The equipment classes analyzed in 

this NOPD; 

4. The design options identified in the 

screening analysis; 

5. The representative equipment 

classes analyzed in this NOPD; 

6. The baseline lamps selected, 

including the inclusion of a 150 W MH 

lamp; 

7. The selection of more efficacious 

substitute lamps analyzed in this NOPD; 

8. The decision to analyze equal 

wattage replacement lamps, as well as 

the methodology used to select the 

equal wattage replacement lamps; 

9. The methodology used to 

determine ELs, as well as the resulting 

ELs analyzed in this NOPD; 

10. The factors used in this NOPD to 

scale to equipment classes not directly 

analyzed; 

11. The decision to include 

replacement pathways other than full 

fixture replacement in this NOPD; 

12. The results and methodology from 

the equipment price determination; 

13. Methods to improve DOE’s energy 

use analysis, as well as any data 

supporting alternate operating hour 

estimates or assumptions regarding 

dimming of HID lamp-and-ballast 

systems; 

14. The assumptions and 

methodology for estimating annual 

operating hours, which were based on 

data from the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization; 

15. Methods to improve DOE’s 

equipment price projections beyond the 

assumption of constant real prices, as 

well as any data supporting alternate 

methods; 

16. The reasonableness of assuming a 

zero percent rebound effect (the 

potential tendency for customers to 

increase HID lamp usage in response to 

more efficient lamp-and-ballast 

systems); 

17. Whether the shipment scenarios 

under various policy scenarios are 

reasonable and likely to occur; 

18. The impediments that prevent 

users of HID lamps from switching to 

LED lighting to garner further energy 

savings; 

19. The expected impact of potential 

standards on the rate at which HID lamp 

customers transition to non-HID 

technology; 

20. The methodology used in the MIA 

and the results of the MIA; 

21. The proposal of a negative 

determination stating that standards for 

HID lamps are not justified. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this NOPD. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24971 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0753; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–128–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011–19– 

04, for all Airbus Model A318, A319, 

A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 

2011–19–04 currently requires 

repetitive inspections of the left-hand 

and right-hand inboard and outboard 

elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for 

cracking, and corrective actions if 

necessary. Since we issued AD 2011– 

19–04, we have determined that certain 

elevator servo-control parts that do not 

conform to the approved type design 

have been installed and may have the 

potential of cracks in the rod eye-end. 

This proposed AD would also require an 

inspection to determine if certain 

elevator servo-control parts are 

installed, and replacement if necessary. 

We are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct rod eye-end cracking, which 

could result in an uncontrolled elevator 

surface and consequent reduced control 

of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 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 

Airplane Directorate, 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–2014– 

0753; 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 Operations 

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 Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62929 

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–2014–0753; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–128–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On September 7, 2011, we issued AD 

2011–19–04, Amendment 39–16809 (76 

FR 57630, September 16, 2011). AD 

2011–19–04 requires actions intended to 

address an unsafe condition on all 

Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and 

A321 series airplanes. AD 2011–19–04 

superseded AD 2009–17–04, 

Amendment 39–15995 (74 FR 41611, 

August 18, 2009). 

Since we issued AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011), the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which 

is the Technical Agent for the Member 

States of the European Community, has 

issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 

2014–0137, dated May 28, 2014 

(referred to after this as the Mandatory 

Continuing Airworthiness Information, 

or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for all Model A318, A319, 

A320, and Model A321 series airplanes. 

The MCAI states: 

One case of elevator servo-control 

disconnection was reported on an A320 

family aeroplane. Investigation results 

revealed that the failure occurred at the 

servo-control rod eye-end. Prompted by this 

finding, additional inspections revealed 

cracking at the same location on a number of 

other servo-control rod eye-ends. In several 

cases, both actuators of the same elevator 

surface were affected. 

It was determined that the detected rod 

end cracks are caused by fatigue, induced by 

a bending effect which is linked to the 

spherical bearing rotational torque. As the 

elevator surface is neither actuated nor 

damped, a dual servo-control disconnection 

on the same elevator would result in an 

uncontrolled surface. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in reduced control of the aeroplane. 

To address this potential unsafe condition, 

EASA issued [an airworthiness directive 

(later revised)] [which corresponds to FAA 

AD 2009–17–04, Amendment 39–5995 (74 

FR 41611, August 18, 2009)] to require a onetime inspection of the elevator servo-control 

rod eye-ends for aeroplanes which had 

accumulated more than 10,000 flight cycles 

(FC) since aeroplane first flight and, in case 

of findings, accomplishment of corrective 

actions. 

As a result of EASA AD 2008–0149, a 

significant number of rod eye-ends were 

found cracked. In addition, some cracks were 

reported on rod eye-ends that had not yet 

accumulated the 10,000 FC of the established 

threshold. 

Prompted by these findings, EASA issued 

[an airworthiness directive (later revised)] 

[which corresponds to FAA AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011)], which partially 

retained the initial inspection requirement of 

EASA AD 2008–0149, which was 

superseded, reduced the compliance time of 

the initial inspection and introduced a 

repetitive inspection programme. 

After EASA AD 2010–0046R1 (http://

ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2010_0046_

R1_superseded.pdf/AD_2010-0046R1_1) was 

issued, a new elevator servo-control rod eyeend was developed, incorporating a regreasable roller bearing. 

Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 

2013–0309 (later corrected) (http://

ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2013_0309_

superseded.pdf/AD_2013-0309_1), retaining 

the requirements of EASA AD 2010–0046R1, 

which was superseded, and introduced an 

optional terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections by replacing the existing elevator 

servo-control rod eye-ends with the new 

elevator servo-control rod eye-end. In 

addition, that [EASA] AD prohibited, for 

aeroplanes that incorporate this optional 

modification, (re)installation of unmodified 

elevator servo-controls. 

At the time that EASA AD 2013–0309 was 

issued, it was planned that Airbus would 

proceed with the certification of certain 

elevator servo-controls, Part Number (P/N) 

31075–0xx, P/N 31075–1xx and P/N 31075– 

3xx (originally certified only for installation 

on Model A320–111 aeroplanes, which are 

no longer in service), to allow installation of 

those parts on other A320 family aeroplane 

Models. 

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus 

decided not to progress with certification of 

the affected elevator servo-controls for 

installation on other Models. 

For the reason described above, and 

because of evidence that such parts remain 

available as spares in the field, this [EASA] 

AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 

2013–0309, which is superseded, and adds a 

prohibition to install the affected elevator 

servo-controls that were only intended for 

A320–111 aeroplanes. 

This proposed AD would require an 

inspection to determine whether any 

elevator control part having P/N 31075– 

0xx, 31075–1xx, or 31075–3xx is 

installed and replacement if necessary. 

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–2014– 

0753. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A320–27–1223, dated September 3, 

2013. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the MCAI or Service Information 

The MCAI does not include an action 

for airplanes installed with elevator 

control parts having part number (P/N) 

31075–0xx, 31075–1xx, or 31075–3xx. 

This proposed AD would require an 

inspection to determine if those elevator 

servo-control parts are installed, and 

replacement if necessary. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The actions that are required by AD 

2011–19–04, Amendment 39–16809 (76 

FR 57630, September 16, 2011), and 

retained in this proposed AD take about 

25 work-hours per product, at an 

average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the actions that are required by 

AD 2011–19–04 is $2,125 per product. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 14 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of 

this proposed AD on U.S. operators to 

be $1,012,690, or $1,190 per product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 2 work-hours and require parts 

costing $4,000, for a cost of $4,170 per 

product. We have no way of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need this action. 

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 proposed 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority because it addresses an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on products identified in this 

rulemaking action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

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 

■ 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 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2011–19–04, Amendment 39–16809 (76 

FR 57630, September 16, 2011), and 

adding the following new AD: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2014–0753; 

Directorate Identifier 2014–NM–128–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 5, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) 

of this AD, certificated in any category, all 

manufacturer serial numbers. 

(1) Airbus Model A318–111, –112, –121, 

and –122 airplanes. 

(2) Airbus Model A319–111, –112, –113, 

–114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes. 

(3) Airbus Model A320–211, –212, –214, 

–231, –232, and –233 airplanes. 

(4) Airbus Model A321–111, –112, –131, 

–211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27, Flight Controls. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a determination 

that certain elevator servo-control parts that 

do not conform to the approved type design 

have been installed and may have the 

potential of cracks in the rod eye-end. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct rod eyeend cracking, which could result in 

uncontrolled elevator surface and consequent 

reduced control of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011), with no changes. 

(1) At the applicable times specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD: 

Inspect both the left-hand and right-hand 

inboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends 

for cracking, in accordance with the 

instructions of Airbus All Operators Telex 

(AOT) A320–27A1186, Revision 04, dated 

April 3, 2009; or the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011. 

As of October 21, 2011 (the effective date of 

AD 2011–19–04, Amendment 39–16809 (76 

FR 57630, September 16, 2011)), use Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 07, 

dated March 2, 2011. 

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated 

10,000 total flight cycles or more as of 

September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD 

2009–17–04, Amendment 39–15995 (74 FR 

41611, August 18, 2009)): At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) and 

(g)(1)(i)(B) of this AD. 

(A) Within 1,500 flight cycles after 

September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD 

2009–17–04, Amendment 39–15995 (74 FR 

41611, August 18, 2009)). 

(B) Within 1,500 flight cycles after 

accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles since 

first flight of the airplane. 

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 

less than 10,000 total flight cycles as of 

September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD 

2009–17–04, Amendment 39–15995 (74 FR 

41611, August 18, 2009)): At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and 

(g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD. 

(A) Before the accumulation of 5,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(B) Within 20 months after October 21, 

2011 (the effective date of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011)) but no later than before 

the accumulation of 11,500 total flight cycles. 

(2) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD: 

Inspect both the left-hand and right-hand 

outboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends 

for cracking, in accordance with the 

instructions of Airbus AOT A320–27A1186, 

Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009; or the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 07, 

dated March 2, 2011. As of October 21, 2011 

(the effective date of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011)), use Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 07, dated 

March 2, 2011. 

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated 

10,000 total flight cycles or more as of 

September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD 

2009–17–04, Amendment 39–15995 (74 FR 

41611, August 18, 2009)): At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(A) and 

(g)(2)(i)(B) of this AD. 

(A) Within 3,000 flight cycles after 

September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD 

2009–17–04, Amendment 39–15995 (74 FR 

41611, August 18, 2009)). 

(B) Within 3,000 flight cycles after 

accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles since 

first flight of the airplane. 

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 

less than 10,000 total flight cycles as of 

September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD 

2009–17–04, Amendment 39–15995 (74 FR 

41611, August 18, 2009)): At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A) and 

(g)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD. 

(A) Before the accumulation of 7,500 total 

flight cycles. 

(B) Within 40 months after October 21, 

2011 (the effective date of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011)) but no later than before 

the accumulation of 13,000 total flight cycles. 

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (h) of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011), with no changes. 

Repeat the inspections of the left-hand and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62931 

right-hand inboard and outboard elevator 

servo-control rod eye-ends for cracking as 

required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of 

this AD at the later of the times specified in 

paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. Repeat 

the inspections thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 5,000 flight cycles. 

(1) Within 5,000 flight cycles after the last 

inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or 

(g)(2) of this AD as applicable. 

(2) Within 6 months after October 21, 2011 

(the effective date of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011)). 

(i) Retained Corrective Actions 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (i) of AD 2011–19–04, Amendment 

39–16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011), 

with no changes. If any cracking is found 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(g) or (h) of this AD, before further flight, 

accomplish all applicable corrective actions, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions and figures of Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 07, dated 

March 2, 2011. 

(j) Retained Parts Limitation for Elevator 

Servo-Control Rod Eye-Ends 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (j) of AD 2011–19–04, Amendment 

39–16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011), 

with a new exception. As of October 21, 2011 

(the effective date of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57360, 

September 16, 2011)), and except as required 

by paragraph (p) of this AD, no person may 

install on any airplane an elevator servocontrol rod eye-end unless it is new or has 

been inspected in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 07, 

dated March 2, 2011, with no crack findings. 

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection 

To Determine Part Numbers 

As of the effective date of this AD: At the 

later of the times specified in paragraphs 

(k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, do an inspection 

to determine whether any elevator control 

part having part number (P/N) 31075–0xx, 

31075–1xx, or 31075–3xx is installed. A 

review of airplane maintenance records is 

acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the 

part numbers of the elevator control parts can 

be conclusively determined from that review. 

(1) Concurrently with the accomplishment 

of the next inspection required by paragraph 

(g) or (h) of this AD. 

(2) Within 30 days after the effective date 

of this AD. 

(l) New Requirement of This AD: 

Replacement of Certain Parts 

If the inspection required by paragraph (k) 

of this AD reveals that any elevator servocontrols having P/Ns 31075–0xx, 31075–1xx, 

or 31075–3xx are installed: Before further 

flight, do the actions specified in paragraph 

(l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Replace all elevator servo-controls 

having P/N 31075–0xx, 31075–1xx, or 

31075–3xx with parts having P/N 31075–2xx 

or 31075–4xx, as applicable, using a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus’s EASA 

Design Organization Approval (DOA). 

(2) Replace all elevator servo-controls 

having P/N 31075–0xx, 31075–1xx, or 

31075–3xx with serviceable parts having 

P/N 31075–6xx or 31075–8xx, as applicable, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instruction of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

27–1223, dated September 3, 2013, or 

Goodrich Service Bulletin 31075–27–22, 

dated July 2, 2013. Serviceable parts are 

those that have been inspected for cracks in 

the rod eye-ends without any crack findings 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011. 

(m) New Optional Terminating Action for 

Certain Inspections 

Modification of an airplane by replacing all 

4 elevator servo-control rod eye-ends with 

modified (i.e. re-greasable) parts, and reidentification of those elevator servo-controls 

to P/N 31075–6xx or P/N 31075–8xx, as 

applicable, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–27–1223, dated 

September 3, 2013; constitutes terminating 

action for the requirements of paragraphs (g), 

(h), (k), and (l) of this AD. 

Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD: 

Maintenance Review Board Report task 

reference 27.34.00/06 is applicable to 

elevator servo-controls having P/N 31075– 

6xx or P/N 31075–8xx. 

(n) New Exception to Certain Inspections 

Airplanes on which Airbus modification 

154554 (installation of servo-controls having 

P/N 31075–6xx or P/N 31075–8xx, fitted with 

modified rod eye-end roller bearing) has been 

embodied in production are not affected by 

the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (k), 

and (l) of this AD, provided that no elevator 

servo-control having P/N 31075–0xx, or P/N 

31075–1xx, or P/N 31075–2xx, or P/N 31075– 

3xx, or P/N 31075–4xx, fitted with rod-end 

assembly P/N 341203-xxx, has been 

reinstalled since first flight. 

(o) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph restates the credit 

specified in paragraph (k) of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011). 

(i) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were 

performed before October 21, 2011 (the 

effective date of AD 2011–19–04, 

Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 57630, 

September 16, 2011)), using the service 

information specified in table 1 to paragraph 

(o)(1)(i) of this AD. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (o)(1)(i) OF THIS AD—CREDIT SERVICE INFORMATION FOR PARAGRAPH (g) OF THIS AD 

Airbus AOT— Revision— Dated— 

A320–27A1186 ............................................................................................................................................... Original ............... June 23, 2008. 

A320–27A1186 ............................................................................................................................................... 01 ....................... August 11, 2008. 

A320–27A1186 ............................................................................................................................................... 02 ....................... March 30, 2009. 

A320–27A1186 ............................................................................................................................................... 03 ....................... April 1, 2009. 

A320–27A1186 ............................................................................................................................................... 04 ....................... April 3, 2009. 

(ii) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before 

October 21, 2011 (the effective date of AD 

2011–19–04, Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 

57630, September 16, 2011)), using Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 05, 

dated March 10, 2010; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 06, dated 

December 14, 2010. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before 

October 21, 2011 (the effective date of AD 

2011–19–04, Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 

57630, September 16, 2011)), using Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–27A1186, Revision 06, 

dated December 14, 2010. 

(p) New Parts Installation Prohibition 

(1) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install on any airplane an 

elevator servo-control having P/N 31075–0xx, 

31075–1xx, or 31075–3xx. 

(2) No person may install on any airplane 

an elevator servo-control having P/N 31075– 

2xx or P/N 31075–4xx, or an elevator servocontrol rod eye-end having P/N 341203 or P/ 

N 341203–XXX, as required by paragraphs 

(p)(2)(i) and (p)(2)(ii) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(i) For airplanes that do not have Airbus 

Modification 154554 embodied in 

production: After optional modification of 

the airplane as specified in paragraph (m) of 

this AD. 

(ii) For airplanes on which Airbus 

Modification 154554 has been embodied in 

production: As of the effective date of this 

AD. 

(q) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- 

AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

(i) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 

2011–19–04, Amendment 39–16809 (76 FR 

57630, September 16, 2011), are approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of 

this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

EASA; or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(r) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2014–0137, dated 

May 28, 2014, 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– 

2014–0753. 

(2) 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 Airplane Directorate, 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 October 

13, 2014. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25023 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. FDA–2014–C–1616] 

EMD Millipore Corp.; Filing of Color 

Additive Petition 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of petition. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

announcing that we have filed a 

petition, submitted by EMD Millipore 

Corp., proposing that the color additive 

regulations be amended to expand the 

safe use of mica-based pearlescent 

pigments in alcoholic beverages to 

include cordials, liqueurs, cocktails, and 

certain other alcoholic beverages, and 

non-alcoholic mixers and mixes. 

DATES: The color additive petition was 

filed on August 21, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food 

and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint 

Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740– 

3835, 240–402–1309. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we 

have filed a color additive petition (CAP 

4C0299), submitted by EMD Millipore 

Corp., c/o Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, 

P.C., 700 13th Street NW., Suite 1200, 

Washington, DC 20005. The petition 

proposes to amend the color additive 

regulations in 21 CFR 73.350, Micabased pearlescent pigments, to expand 

the safe use of mica-based pearlescent 

pigments in alcoholic beverages to 

include cordials, liqueurs, cocktails, and 

certain other alcoholic beverages, and 

non-alcoholic mixers and mixes. 

We have determined under 21 CFR 

25.32(k) that this action is of a type that 

does not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

Dated: October 16, 2014. 

Dennis M. Keefe, 

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24962 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0711; FRL–9917–80– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the applicable state 

implementation plan for the State of 

Nevada submitted by the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection. 

The revisions include amended State 

rules related to applications for, and 

issuance of, permits for stationary 

sources, but not including review and 

permitting of major sources and major 

modifications under parts C and D of 

title I of the Clean Air Act. EPA is taking 

action under the Clean Air Act 

obligation to take action on State 

submittals of revisions to state 

implementation plans. The intended 

effect of the proposed approval is to fix 

deficiencies in the previously-approved 

version of the permitting rules and to 

ensure that new or modified stationary 

sources do not interfere with attainment 

or maintenance of the national ambient 

air quality standards. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0711, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Laura Yannayon 

(AIR–3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS