This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

24693 

Vol. 81, No. 81 

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 

1The settlement agreement has been 

preliminarily approved by the Court. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 870 

RIN 3206–AM67 

Federal Employees’ Group Life 

Insurance Program: Court Orders Prior 

to July 22, 1998 

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing this final 

regulation to adopt as final the interim 

final regulation published on December 

4, 2012. The regulation implements 

section 8705 of title 5, United States 

Code regarding the effect of any court 

decree of divorce, annulment, or legal 

separation, or any court-approved 

property settlement agreement incident 

to any court decree of divorce, 

annulment, or legal separation 

(hereinafter ‘‘court order’’) where the 

court order expressly provides that an 

individual receive Federal Employee’s 

Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) benefits. 

The regulations will allow court orders 

submitted to the appropriate Federal 

agency before July 22, 1998 to be 

effective for providing FEGLI benefits if 

the court order was received in the 

appropriate office before the insured 

Federal employee’s or annuitant’s death. 

This revision does not affect the current 

statutory limitation that court orders 

apply only when FEGLI benefits are 

based on insured individuals who died 

on or after July 22, 1998. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 27, 

2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marguerite Martel, Senior Policy 

Analyst, at (202) 606–0004 or email: 

marguerite.martel@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

Law 105–205, 112 Stat. 683, enacted 

July 22, 1998, amending section 8705 of 

title 5, United States Code, required 

benefits to be paid in accordance with 

the terms of a court order instead of the 

otherwise existing statutory order of 

precedence for payment of benefits 

under FEGLI. On October 8, 1999, OPM 

published a final regulation interpreting 

the law to mean that only those court 

orders received in the appropriate office 

after the date the law was enacted 

would be valid to name a FEGLI 

beneficiary. The regulation amended 

section 870.801(d)(2), of title 5, Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

Based on Pascavage v. Office of 

Personnel Management, 773 F. Supp.2d 

452 (D. Del. 2011), OPM is changing this 

regulation to provide FEGLI benefits 

based on court orders submitted to the 

appropriate Federal agency before July 

22, 1998, so long as the court order was 

received in the appropriate office before 

the insured Federal employee’s or 

annuitant’s death. This change is 

consistent with the settlement 

agreement in this case, Pascavage v. 

Office of Personnel Management, C.A. 

No.: 09–276–LPS–MPT (D. Del. filed 

Aug. 6, 2012).1 This revision does not 

affect the current statutory limitation 

that court orders apply only when 

FEGLI benefits are based on insured 

individuals who died on or after July 22, 

1998. On December 4, 2012, OPM 

published an interim final regulation at 

77 FR 71687. We received no comments 

on the interim final regulation. 

Therefore, OPM is adopting the interim 

final regulation with no changes. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

OPM has examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 (September 1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563, which directs agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public, health, and 

safety effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). A regulatory impact analysis 

must be prepared for major rules with 

economically significant effects of $100 

million or more in any one year. This 

rule is not considered a major rule 

because OPM estimates there are 

relatively few court orders received by 

the appropriate office before July 22, 

1998. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because they will apply only to Federal 

employees, annuitants and their former 

spouses. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 870 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Government employees, 

Hostages, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Life 

insurance, Retirement. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Beth F. Cobert, 

Acting Director. 

PART 870—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ 

GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 5 CFR part 870 which was 

published at 77 FR 71687 on 

Dceemmber 4, 2012, is adopted as a 

final rule without change. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09674 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–63–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1167] 

Airworthiness Directives Legal 

Interpretation 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Airworthiness directives legal 

interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration is issuing a legal 

interpretation on regulations applicable 

to airworthiness directives. This legal 

interpretation responds to questions 

asked by an Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee and is intended to resolve 

certain issues for the public. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
24694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In response to several requests, the FAA 

extended the comment period until June 30, 2011. 

76 FR 30040 (May 24, 2011). 

DATES: April 27, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Anderson, Manager of Aircraft 

Certification and Space Law Branch, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202– 

267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Request 

This legal interpretation addresses 

several regulations in Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulation (14 CFR) 

part 39 applicable to airworthiness 

directives. It responds to questions 

asked by the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) Organization/

Procedures Working Group of the 

Airworthiness Directive Implementation 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD 

ARC). The Working Group (WG) 

requested the agency to interpret several 

provisions in part 39 to resolve issues 

that have been debated within the WG. 

These issues partly result from 

amendments made to part 39 in 2002. 

See Airworthiness Directives, 67 FR 

47998 (Jul. 22, 2002). The WG asked 

four questions: 

1. What is the extent of an aircraft 

operator’s continuing obligation 

following the issuance of an 

airworthiness directive (AD)? 

2. What is the extent of an aircraft 

operator’s obligation to accomplish 

actions referenced in an AD beyond 

those actions necessary to resolve the 

unsafe condition specifically identified 

in an AD? 

3. What is the meaning of the term 

‘‘applicable’’ in AD 2007–07–02? 

4. What is the extent of an aircraft 

operator’s responsibilities when an AD 

requires an action that cannot be 

accomplished on a particular aircraft? 

The FAA published for public comment 

a proposed legal interpretation 

answering these questions. Proposed 

Airworthiness Directive Legal 

Interpretation, 76 FR 20898 (Apr. 14, 

2011) (Proposed Legal Interpretation).1

The FAA received numerous comments 

expressing concern with the FAA’s 

proposed interpretation. Most 

comments focus on the FAA’s responses 

to questions 1 and 4. 

As an initial matter, it is important to 

emphasize that each AD is unique, and 

its terms control. Thus, this legal 

interpretation only addresses the 

matters raised by the AD ARC and is 

limited to an interpretation of part 39 

and general agency policy governing 

ADs. 

Legal Interpretation, Summary of 

Comments and the FAA’s Responses 

Some of the commenters suggested 

that this interpretation should change 

the existing part 39 regulations or FAA 

internal procedures with respect to how 

ADs are prepared and issued. The FAA 

rejects those suggestions because a 

regulation cannot be changed by a legal 

interpretation; rulemaking is the proper 

method for amending a regulation. 

Some of the comments raised policy 

considerations, which provide valuable 

information to the FAA, but those 

policy considerations cannot change the 

present wording of the regulations, and 

are best taken into account during 

rulemaking. A legal interpretation only 

may explain the meaning of the words 

that are in the existing regulation; it may 

not create new policy. Set forth below 

is a summary and response to comments 

as to the proper interpretation of 

existing provisions of part 39. 

Question 1: What is the extent of an 

aircraft operator’s continuing obligation 

following the issuance of an 

airworthiness directive (AD)? 

Answer: The FAA interprets §§ 39.7 

and 39.9 to mean that operators have an 

ongoing obligation to ensure that the 

modification mandated by an AD is 

maintained. 

For changes to AD-mandated 

modifications and for deviations from 

ADs that do not have a terminating 

action, the operator must obtain 

approval for an alternative means of 

compliance (AMOC) with the AD. The 

FAA recognizes that in some cases this 

may impose a burden on operators to 

obtain AMOC approvals for activities 

that would otherwise be considered 

normal maintenance. The FAA may 

allow, on an AD-by-AD basis, reversion 

to part 43 maintenance, with 

airworthiness limitations if appropriate 

to prevent operators from reintroducing 

unsafe conditions. 

Summary of Comments Received 

Some commenters contended that the 

words of the regulation must be given 

their plain meaning and that the 

proposed interpretation is not consistent 

with the regulatory text. Section 39.9 

provides, ‘‘If the requirements of an 

airworthiness directive have not been 

met, you violate § 39.7 each time you 

operate the aircraft or use the product.’’ 

Some commenters suggested that this 

means that once the requirements of the 

AD are met, the action has been taken 

to resolve the unsafe condition and the 

AD is, therefore, no longer applicable. 

Indeed, some commenters further 

contended that after the AD’s 

requirements have been met, it is likely 

that the product will be in a new type 

design that is different from the type 

design covered under the AD, and 

therefore, the product now falls out of 

the AD’s applicability. While some 

commenters contended that § 39.9 

contains no continuing obligation to 

maintain an AD-mandated condition, 

other commenters suggested that the 

standard maintenance practices under 

other parts should then control. A 

significant number of the comments 

objected to maintaining an ADmandated configuration in perpetuity 

without any allowance for or 

consideration of normal maintenance, 

alterations, and design changes properly 

performed and approved in accordance 

with parts 21 and 43. 

FAA’s Response to Comments 

Under §§ 39.7 and 39.9, operators 

must comply with the requirements of 

applicable ADs and must operate 

aircraft in accordance with all 

applicable ADs. Section 39.7 prohibits 

the operation of a product that fails to 

meet AD requirements. Section 39.9 

imposes a continuing obligation to 

maintain compliance with an AD by 

establishing a separate violation for each 

time an aircraft is operated or a product 

is used that fails to meet AD 

requirements. When these sections are 

read together in the context of part 39, 

an AD requires that products be 

operated free of any identified unsafe 

condition. The FAA issues ADs not only 

to require operators to accomplish 

particular actions listed in the AD, but 

also to ensure that, when products are 

operated, they are free of identified 

unsafe conditions. It is important that 

once the unsafe condition is corrected 

as required by an AD, the unsafe 

condition not be reintroduced. Even if 

the configuration of the airplane has 

changed to comply with the AD, it does 

not mean that the AD no longer applies. 

There are two main categories of ADs 

issued by the FAA: (1) Ongoing 

inspection and/or maintenance 

requirements that address a known 

unsafe condition or an unsafe condition 

likely to exist; and (2) ADs that require 

modifications, which may be 

‘‘terminating actions’’ for ongoing 

requirements, and which remove the 

unsafe condition. Sections 39.7 and 39.9 

impose a continuing obligation to 

comply with both types of AD 

requirements. 

The comments appear to manifest 

confusion regarding the second type of 

AD and specifically the use of the term 

‘‘terminating action’’ in an AD. While 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 24695 

2Any operation of an unairworthy aircraft is 

subject to enforcement action under Part 91. 

3Parts 21 and 43 also prohibit the reintroduction 

of an unsafe condition. 

4The FAA has ‘‘broad authority to require 

whatever types of corrective actions we determine 

to be most effective in addressing identified unsafe 

conditions. This includes inspections, repairs, 

modifications, operating limitations, airworthiness 

limitations, and maintenance program 

requirements.’’ Airworthiness Directives, 67 FR 

47998–01 (Jul. 22, 2002). The FAA issues ADs 

under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); 

therefore, if the actions required by an AD are 

reasonably related to resolution of the unsafe 

condition, the FAA may mandate them. 5 U.S.C.A. 

§ 551 et seq. 

5AD 2007–07–02 paragraph (f) states in pertinent 

part that operators must ‘‘do[] all the applicable 

actions specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the applicable service bulletin 

specified in Table 1 of this AD.’’. 

how that term is used in an individual 

AD controls, general guidance of the 

FAA’s general use of such term follows. 

Terminating action ADs allow or direct 

operators to perform a maintenance 

action that removes the unsafe 

condition from the affected aircraft and 

eliminates the need for the AD’s 

inspection requirements. One example 

of a terminating action is the removal 

and replacement of a defective part that 

had been subject to AD-mandated 

repetitive inspections. After a 

‘‘terminating action,’’ the resulting 

configuration constitutes an FAAapproved type design which must be 

maintained as required by §§ 39.7 and 

39.9. This configuration must also be 

maintained in order for the aircraft to be 

airworthy.2

Terminating actions fall into two 

broad categories—those that either (1) 

correct whatever defect kept the product 

from conforming to an approved type 

design; or (2) accomplish a required 

change in type design where the FAA 

has determined that the original type 

design does not comply with the 

applicable airworthiness standards. In 

both cases, the post-AD configuration 

meets type certification requirements 

and renders the aircraft in a condition 

for safe operation. An aircraft operator 

must maintain that resulting 

configuration, and may not change it to 

any other configuration that does not 

comply either with the AD or with an 

approved AMOC to the AD. 

For ADs mandating modifications 

where the AD requires no further action 

after modification, the operator may 

perform standard maintenance practices 

on that new configuration, associated 

with maintaining the fleet, which would 

not change the required modification, 

and may do so without AMOC approval. 

Any change from the mandated 

modification, however, requires FAA 

approval of an AMOC.3

When an unsafe condition is 

eliminated in production before the 

FAA issues the AD, the FAA limits the 

applicability of the AD requirements to 

exclude those newly produced aircraft. 

Those new aircraft resolve the unsafe 

condition by having appropriate 

modifications incorporated into their 

type design during production and 

initial airworthiness certification. 

Continued compliance with the type 

design, inspection, and maintenance 

requirements under parts 21 and 43 for 

that product should ensure that 

operators maintain the product’s 

condition for safe operation. In contrast, 

when the FAA issues an AD, it is 

because the agency determined that 

regulatory requirements have not 

effectively prevented an unsafe 

condition of the affected products. 

Therefore, § 39.7 requires that, when a 

product is operated, it must meet the 

requirements of all applicable ADs 

including any ongoing mandated 

inspection and maintenance 

requirements that may override general 

part 43 maintenance practices. 

Question 2: What is the extent of an 

aircraft operator’s obligation to 

accomplish actions referenced in an AD 

beyond those actions necessary to 

resolve the unsafe condition specifically 

identified in an AD? 

Answer: An AD may require more 

actions than correcting the specific 

unsafe condition. These may include 

actions reasonably related to resolving 

or preventing the unsafe condition. 

Thus, an aircraft operator has an 

obligation to accomplish all actions 

required by an AD including those 

beyond the actions necessary to resolve 

the unsafe condition specifically 

identified in an AD. 

Summary of Comments Received 

Some commenters argued that the 

FAA’s interpretation is not consistent 

with the regulatory text because by its 

terms § 39.11 is limited to actions to 

resolve only the ‘‘unsafe condition.’’ 

According to such commenters, if an 

action required by the AD does not 

directly affect the unsafe condition, 

those actions are over-prescriptive and 

outside the scope of the FAA’s 

authority. 

Other commenters take the opposite 

view. As Airbus, a design approval 

holder (DAH) noted, operators often 

request complete sets of instructions for 

preparation, procedures, test, and 

closing up. Additionally, DAHdetermined tools, methods, proceedings, 

materials, and instructions to be used 

for accomplishing a service instruction 

for continued airworthiness are part of 

the type design under § 21.31. 

FAA’s Response to Comments 

The FAA’s interpretation is consistent 

with Title 49 of United States Code, 

Section 44701, which establishes the 

FAA’s broad authority to issue 

regulations in the interest of aviation 

safety and the FAA issues ADs under 

such authority. In addition, § 39.11 of 

the regulations provides: 

§ 39.11 What actions do airworthiness 

directives require? Airworthiness directives 

specify inspections you must carry out, 

conditions and limitations you must comply 

with, and any actions you must take to 

resolve an unsafe condition (emphasis 

added). 

When describing the types of actions 

required by an AD, which is a final rule, 

§ 39.11 does not limit the agency’s broad 

statutory authority. AD requirements are 

imposed by the language of the AD itself 

and not by § 39.11. Thus, an AD may 

require more actions than simply 

correcting the specific unsafe condition 

by, for example, requiring certain 

continuing maintenance actions to 

prevent or detect the unsafe condition 

in the future. 

In developing an AD, the FAA 

determines the range of actions that are 

reasonably related to and further the 

interest of aviation safety.4 For example, 

service information frequently includes 

instructions for accessing the area to be 

worked on to address the unsafe 

condition. Because these access 

instructions are reasonably related to 

addressing the unsafe condition, the 

FAA has the authority to mandate such 

instructions by AD. 

The rulemaking process by which 

individual ADs are adopted provides 

the public with an opportunity to 

identify and express concern with 

potentially overly prescriptive 

requirements. In addition, each AD 

contains a provision allowing for 

approval of an AMOC, which allows an 

operator to address an unsafe condition 

in a manner approved by the FAA. 

Question 3: What is the meaning of the 

term ‘‘applicable’’ in AD 2007–07–02? 5

Answer: The FAA interprets 

‘‘applicable’’ to limit the required 

actions to those that apply to a 

particular aircraft under the specific 

conditions found. The use of 

‘‘applicable’’ does not permit an 

operator to decide which actions are 

necessary to correct the unsafe 

condition. 

Summary of Comments Received 

One commenter contended there was 

no ambiguity in the subject AD because 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
24696 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

the SB specifically list the fleets 

affected, and which steps are applicable 

based on several different configurations 

of various aircraft. Therefore, the 

commenter concluded there is no need 

to include the word ‘‘applicable’’ to 

exclude those products for which the 

requirements clearly do not apply. 

ARSA commented that under part 39 

the FAA cannot make anything 

‘‘applicable’’ that is not directly related 

to the unsafe condition and specified 

actions must be limited to those that 

directly address the unsafe condition. In 

its view, the FAA’s interpretation 

mandates accomplishing all actions, 

whether or not necessary to correcting 

the unsafe condition, which is contrary 

to part 39. 

FAA’s Response to Comments 

The FAA intends ‘‘applicable’’ to 

have the same meaning in both places 

in paragraph (f) of AD 2007–07–02. The 

first usage limits the required actions to 

those that apply to a particular aircraft 

under the specific conditions found; it 

does not permit an operator to decide 

which actions are necessary and which 

are unnecessary to correct the unsafe 

condition. 

The second usage references Table 1 

in the AD that identifies the model of 

aircraft to which each service bulletin 

applies. The ‘‘applicable service 

bulletin’’ means the service bulletin that 

applies to each corresponding aircraft 

model, as indicated in Table 1 of the 

AD. Similarly, ‘‘all the applicable 

actions’’ specified in each applicable 

service bulletin are those actions that 

are identified as applying to a particular 

aircraft. ‘‘Applicable’’ is a necessary 

qualifier in this context for two reasons: 

(1) In many ADs, the referenced service 

bulletins specify different actions for 

different aircraft configurations, 

typically identified as ‘‘Group 1,’’ 

‘‘Group 2,’’ etc.; (2) in many ADs, the 

referenced service bulletins specify 

different actions depending on 

conditions found during performance of 

previous steps in the instructions (e.g., 

if a crack is smaller than a specified 

size, repair in accordance with the 

Structural Repair Manual; if larger, 

repair in accordance with a method 

approved by the Aircraft Certification 

Office). The term ‘‘applicable’’ limits the 

AD’s requirements to only those that are 

specified in the service bulletin for the 

configuration and conditions of a 

particular aircraft. In this case, the word 

‘‘all’’ means that every applicable action 

must be accomplished. 

Although this response applies 

specifically to AD 2007–07–02, this 

general principle also applies to uses of 

the term ‘‘applicable’’ in other ADs. The 

FAA promulgates ADs with specific 

standards to directly address the 

identified unsafe condition. As 

exemplified by AD 2007–07–02, ADs 

often require many different actions for 

various models and aircraft 

configurations. Because of those 

complexities, mandating AD actions 

without incorporating by reference the 

manufacturer’s service bulletin that may 

contain ‘‘normal’’ part 43 maintenance 

actions becomes impracticable or may 

interject unnecessary complexities or 

inconsistencies that adversely affect 

performance of the necessary corrective 

actions. 

Question 4: What is the extent of an 

aircraft operator’s responsibilities when 

an AD requires an action that cannot be 

accomplished on a particular aircraft? 

Answer: Sections 39.15 and 39.17 

require ADs to apply to a specific 

product, even if the product has been 

changed through component removal or 

replacement or other modification. An 

operator who cannot comply with the 

specific requirements of an AD must 

request approval of an AMOC from the 

FAA. The operator must obtain an 

AMOC approval even if the affected 

component has been removed from the 

aircraft, rendering compliance with the 

specific requirements of the AD 

impossible. The AMOC process allows 

the FAA to determine whether the 

unsafe condition has been eliminated 

when an operator removes a component 

addressed in an AD and replaces it with 

a different component. 

Summary of Comments 

Some commenters stated the FAA’s 

interpretation is either wrong because 

when the AD pertains to a specific part 

or component that has since been 

legally removed or pertains to a part or 

such that is not installed on the aircraft, 

the AD no longer applies, or represents 

a change from past practice or guidance. 

FAA Response to Comments 

If a change to a product makes it 

impossible to comply with the 

requirements of an AD, then the 

operator must request an AMOC 

approval from the FAA. Sections 39.15 

and 39.17 directly answer this issue. 

Section 39.15 provides that an AD 

applies to each product identified in the 

AD, even if an individual product has 

been changed by modifying, altering, or 

repairing it in the area addressed by the 

AD. Section 39.17 requires that if a 

change in a product affects an operator’s 

ability to accomplish the actions 

required by the AD in any way, the 

operator must request FAA approval of 

an AMOC. Together these sections 

require an operator who cannot comply 

with the specific requirements of an AD 

to request FAA approval of an AMOC. 

The operator must obtain an AMOC 

approval even if the affected product 

has been removed from the aircraft, 

rendering compliance with the specific 

requirements of the AD impossible. The 

AMOC process allows the FAA to 

determine whether the unsafe condition 

has been eliminated when an operator 

removes a component to which an AD 

applies and replaces it with a different 

component. 

This approach was clearly specified 

in the FAA’s part 39 rulemaking in 

2002. See Airworthiness Directives, 67 

FR 47998 (‘‘Specifically, FAA is adding 

to part 39 the language explaining that 

ADs apply even if products have been 

modified, altered, or repaired in the area 

addressed by the directive.’’). The 2002 

rulemaking did not introduce any new 

regulatory requirements; rather, the 

FAA simply codified in part 39 

provisions currently found in ADs. Id. at 

47999. If a change in a product affects 

one’s ability to comply with the AD, the 

person operating the aircraft or using 

the product must ask the FAA’s 

permission to use an AMOC, and the 

request must either show that the 

change eliminated the unsafe condition 

or include the specific actions proposed. 

Id. at 48000. 

This response was coordinated with 

the Aircraft Maintenance Division of the 

Flight Standards Service and the Design, 

Manufacturing and Airworthiness 

Division of the Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 19, 

2016. 

Lorelei Peter, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09667 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–4474; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NE–34–AD; Amendment 39– 

18485; AD 2016–08–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & 

Whitney Division Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES