68050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Although the Agencies generally expect to 

consult closely on scenario development, 

they may have different views of risks that 

should be reflected in the stress test scenarios 

used by covered institutions for the annual 

stress test. The OCC may distribute scenarios 

to covered institutions that differ in certain 

respects from those distributed by the FDIC 

and the Board if necessary to better reflect 

specific OCC concerns. The OCC expects 

such situations to be extremely rare, 

however, and anticipates making every effort 

to avoid differences in the scenarios required 

by each agency. 

The OCC anticipates that the stress test 

scenarios will be revised annually as 

appropriate to ensure that each scenario 

remains relevant under prevailing economic 

and industry conditions. These yearly 

revisions will enable the scenarios to capture 

evolving risks and vulnerabilities. The need 

to ensure that scenarios do not become 

outdated because of economic and financial 

developments makes a lengthy process of 

review and comment concerning scenarios 

prior to distribution each year impractical. 

However, the process of consultation with 

the Board and the FDIC, as well as the 

ongoing interaction of OCC staff with public 

and private sector experts to obtain views on 

salient risks and to obtain suggestions for the 

behavior of key economic variables, should 

ensure that the stress conditions reflected in 

the scenarios are well suited to their purpose. 

The scenario development process 

culminates with the distribution of the 

scenarios to all covered institutions no later 

than November 15 of each year. The scenario 

descriptions provided to covered institutions 

will include values for economic and 

financial variables depicting the paths those 

variables follow under the scenarios. The 

OCC believes that distribution of the 

scenarios by November 15 aligns with similar 

processes at the FDIC and the Board. 

Dated: November 6, 2012. 

Thomas J. Curry, 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27660 Filed 11–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0488; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–106–AD; Amendment 

39–17244; AD 2012–22–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Airbus Model A300 B4–600 and A300 

B4–600R, Model A300, and Model A310 

series airplanes. This AD was prompted 

by reports of fatigue cracking in the 

crossbeams at the junction of the 

actuator beam of the lower deck cargo 

door. This AD requires repetitive 

inspections of the crossbeams of certain 

fuselage frames, and repair if necessary. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracking of the crossbeams at the 

junction of the actuator beam of the 

lower deck cargo door, which could 

result in failure to withstand ultimate 

load conditions, and consequent 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective December 

20, 2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of December 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30228). 

That NPRM proposed to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) 

states: 

Some operators have reported cracked 

crossbeams at the junction with the lower 

deck cargo door actuator beam. The 

investigation results indicate that these 

cracks initiated in the fastener hole, 

propagated in a vertical direction and were 

due to fatigue. 

This condition, if not corrected, could lead, 

in case of cracks propagation in a crossbeam 

(upper and lower web), to the floor grid being 

unable to withstand ultimate load condition. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)] 

AD requires repetitive [high frequency eddy 

current] inspections [for cracks] of certain 

crossbeams including those previously 

repaired by the Structure Repair Manual 

(SRM) or Repair Approval Sheet (RAS). 

The required actions include repairing 

any cracking. As an option, modifying 

the crossbeams terminates the repetitive 

inspections. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 30228, 

May 22, 2012) and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Request To Clarify That Freighter 

Airplanes Are Not Affected 

UPS stated that the NPRM (77 FR 

30228, May 22, 2012) does not apply to 

its Model A300 F4–622R airplanes. 

We infer that the commenter is asking 

for clarification that its airplanes are not 

affected by the proposed requirements. 

Freighter airplanes identified as 

freighters on the initial certificate of 

airworthiness are excluded from the 

applicability in this AD. The loads 

distribution via the main deck cargo 

loading system onto the floor grid is 

different from passenger airplanes. In 

addition, the European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA), which is the aviation 

authority for the Member States of the 

European Community, has granted an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) for Airbus airplanes converted 

from passenger to freighter 

configuration by EASA supplemental 

type certificate (STC). We have changed 

the applicability in paragraph (c) of this 

AD to exclude airplanes converted by 

the equivalent FAA STCs ST01431NY, 

ST00177LA–D, and ST00100NY. 

Request To Extend Repetitive 

Inspection Interval/Eliminate 

Compliance Time for Corrective Action 

FedEx asked that the repetitive 

inspection interval specified in 

paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 

30228, May 22, 2012), be extended from 

600 flight cycles to within 1,500 flight 

cycles or 24 months after the effective 

date of the AD, whichever occurs first. 

FedEx stated that the current repetitive 

inspection interval is ten times more 

frequent than the 6,000-flight-cycle 

interval in the existing airworthiness 

limitations items and maintenance 

review board requirements. FedEx 

added that these maintenance program 

items have been performed regularly at 

FedEx and have yielded few findings. 

FedEx noted that this extension will 

coincide with its regular maintenance 

check schedule. 

FedEx also stated that paragraph (g)(2) 

of the NPRM (77 FR 30228, May 22, 

2012) specifies that, if a prior repair has 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 68051 

been done on the crossbeam, the 

corrective action requires accomplishing 

a repair within 600 flight cycles after the 

effective date of the AD. This places an 

additional burden on operators by 

mandating replacement of the 

crossbeam. 

We disagree with the requests to 

extend the compliance time for the 

repetitive inspections and to eliminate 

the compliance time for the corrective 

action. Based on the data provided by 

Airbus, we determined that repetitive 

intervals of 600 flight hours and doing 

the repair before the accumulation of 

10,000 total flight cycles since first 

flight of the airplane, or within 600 

flight cycles after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later, is 

appropriate to address the identified 

unsafe condition. In developing an 

appropriate compliance time for these 

actions, we considered the urgency 

associated with the subject unsafe 

condition, the manufacturer’s 

recommendations, and the practical 

aspect of accomplishing the required 

actions within a period of time that 

corresponds to the normal scheduled 

maintenance for most affected operators. 

In addition, our compliance time 

corresponds with the compliance time 

of the parallel AD issued by EASA. 

Under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) 

of this AD, we will consider requests for 

approval of an extension of the 

compliance time if sufficient data are 

submitted to substantiate that the new 

compliance time would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed the AD in this regard. 

Product Identification Correction 

We have changed the product 

identification in this AD to specify 

‘‘Airbus.’’ We inadvertently listed ‘‘The 

Boeing Company’’ in the product 

identification section of the NPRM (77 

FR 30228, May 22, 2012). 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this AD affects about 152 

products of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 1 workhour per product to comply with the 

basic requirements of this AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be 

$12,920, or $85 per product. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 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): 

2012–22–08 Airbus: Amendment 39–17244; 

Docket No. FAA–2012–0488; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–106–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective December 20, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2– 

1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, 

and B4–203 airplanes; Model A300 B4–601, 

B4–603, B4–620, and B4–622 airplanes; 

Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R 

airplanes; and Model A310–203, -204, -221, 

-222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; 

certificated in any category; except those 

airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), 

(c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD. 

(1) Airplanes on which Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–53–6166 (Airbus Modification 

13434) has been embodied in service (for 

Model A300 B4–600 and A300 B4–600R 

series airplanes). 

(2) Airplanes on which Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–53–0389 (Airbus Modification 

13434) has been embodied in service (for 

Model A300 series airplanes). 

(3) Airplanes on which Airbus Service 

Bulletin A310–53–2133 (Airbus Modification 

13434) has been embodied in service (for 

Model A310 series airplanes). 

(4) Airplanes modified by FAA 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

ST01431NY, ST00177LA–D, or ST00100NY, 

as applicable. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

fatigue cracking in the crossbeams at the 

junction of the actuator beam of the lower 

deck cargo door. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct cracking of the crossbeams 

at the junction of the actuator beam of the 

lower deck cargo door, which could result in 

failure to withstand ultimate load conditions, 

and consequent reduced structural integrity 

of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

You are responsible for having the actions 

required by this AD performed within the 

compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

(g) Repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current 

Inspections 

(1) For airplanes on which the crossbeams 

at frames (FR) 22/23 and FR 61/62 have not 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

been repaired as specified in an Airbus 

structural repair manual or repair approval 

sheet as of the effective date of this AD: 

Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight 

cycles since first flight of the airplane, or 

within 600 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, 

perform a high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection for cracking of the 

crossbeam fuselage frame stations FR 22/23 

and FR 61/62, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin identified in 

paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of 

this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 600 flight cycles until 

the modification specified in paragraph (i) of 

this AD has been done. 

(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–53–0390, dated January 15, 2010 (for 

Model A300 series airplanes). 

(ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A310–53–2134, dated January 15, 2010 (for 

Model A310 series airplanes). 

(iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–53–6168, dated January 15, 2010 (for 

Model A300–600 series airplanes). 

(2) For airplanes on which the crossbeams 

at FR 22/23 and FR 61/62 have been repaired 

as specified in an Airbus structural repair 

manual or repair approval sheet as of the 

effective date of this AD: Before the 

accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles 

since first flight of the airplane, or within 600 

flight cycles after the effective date of this 

AD, whichever occurs later, repair in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or 

its delegated agent). 

(h) Corrective Action 

If any crack is found during any inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before 

further flight, repair any crack using a 

method approved by the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116; or EASA (or 

its delegated agent). 

(i) Optional Terminating Action 

Modifying the crossbeam fuselage frame 

stations FR 22/23 and FR 61/62, including 

doing rotating probe inspections for cracks of 

fastener holes, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin identified in 

paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, 

and repairing any crack using a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116; or EASA (or its delegated 

agent); terminates the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. 

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0389, 

Revision 02, dated April 27, 2011 (for Model 

A300 series airplanes). 

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2133, 

Revision 02, dated April 27, 2011 (for Model 

A310 series airplanes). 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6166, 

Revision 01, dated May 21, 2010 (for Model 

A300–600 series airplanes). 

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; fax (425) 

227–1149. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(k) Related Information 

Refer to EASA Airworthiness Directive 

2011–0086, dated May 12, 2011; and the 

service information identified in paragraphs 

(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), and (k)(6) of 

this AD, for related information. 

(1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–53–0390, dated January 15, 2010. 

(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–53–6168, dated January 15, 2010. 

(3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A310–53–2134, dated January 15, 2010. 

(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0389, 

Revision 02, dated April 27, 2011. 

(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6166, 

Revision 01, dated May 21, 2010. 

(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2133, 

Revision 02, dated April 27, 2011. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–53–0390, dated January 15, 2010. 

(ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–53–6168, dated January 15, 2010. 

(iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A310–53–2134, dated January 15, 2010. 

(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53– 

0389, Revision 02, dated April 27, 2011. 

(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6166, 

Revision 01, dated May 21, 2010. 

(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53– 

2133, Revision 02, dated April 27, 2011. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW 

(Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 

93 44 51; email account.airwortheas@airbus.com; Internet http:// 

www.airbus.com. 

(4) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

24, 2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27055 Filed 11–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0643; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–190–AD; Amendment 

39–17241; AD 2012–22–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker 

Services B.V. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 

Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. That AD 

currently requires performing a detailed 

visual inspection for cracks of the 

pistons on the main landing gear (MLG), 

and replacing the affected pistons if 

necessary. This new AD also requires 

modifying the MLG by installing a 

piston containing a certain part number, 

and revising the airplane maintenance 

program. This AD was prompted by a 

new modification developed to 

safeguard the integrity of the MLG 

assembly and improve surface 

protection of the affected area of the 

MLG piston. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent MLG failure, possibly resulting 

in loss of control of the airplane during 

the landing roll-out. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

December 20, 2012. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with