42652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

district office. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference 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 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(i) Related Information 

Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European 

Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness 

Directive 2013–0165, dated July 25, 2013, for 

related information. This MCAI may be 

found in the AD docket on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;

D=FAA-2014-0005. 

(j) 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 this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310–29–2103, 

dated December 21, 2012. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness 

Office—EAW, 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. 

(4) 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. 

(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/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 

2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15805 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0004; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–143–AD; Amendment 

39–17900; AD 2014–14–05] 

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 A320–111, –211, –212, 

and –231 airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by reports of broken struts of 

the center wing box (CWB). This AD 

requires a detailed inspection of the 

CWB struts for cracking, and repair if 

necessary. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct cracked or broken 

struts, which could result in strut failure 

and consequent reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 27, 

2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of August 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

FAA-2014-0004; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC. 

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.airwortheas@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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain Airbus Model A320– 

111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 

7596). 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0149, 

dated July 16, 2013 (referred to after this 

as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for the specified products. The MCAI 

states: 

Two cases of broken Centre Wing Box 

(CWB) struts have been reported on A320 

aeroplanes. Investigation results indicated 

that strut thickness in the crack initiation 

area was lower than specified in the 

production drawings. Only a limited batch of 

aeroplanes is affected by this manufacturing 

defect. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in strut failure, reducing the residual 

life of the remaining struts to below the 

initial Design Service Goal, which would 

deteriorate the structural integrity of the 

aeroplane. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD requires repetitive Detailed 

Visual inspections (DVI) of the lower and 

upper ends of the CWB struts to detect cracks 

and, depending on findings, accomplishment 

of associated corrective actions [repair]. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;

D=FAA-2014-0004-0002. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM (79 

FR 7596, February 10, 2014) or on the 

determination of the cost to the public. 

‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer’’ 

Paragraph in This AD 

Since late 2006, we have included a 

standard paragraph titled ‘‘Airworthy 

Product’’ in all MCAI ADs in which the 

FAA develops an AD based on a foreign 

authority’s AD. 

The MCAI or referenced service 

information in an FAA AD often directs 

the owner/operator to contact the 

manufacturer for corrective actions, 

such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy 

Product paragraph allowed owners/

operators to use corrective actions 

provided by the manufacturer if those 

actions were FAA-approved. In 

addition, the paragraph stated that any 

actions approved by the State of Design 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 42653 

Authority (or its delegated agent) are 

considered to be FAA-approved. 

In the NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 

10, 2014), we proposed to prevent the 

use of repairs that were not specifically 

developed to correct the unsafe 

condition, by requiring that the repair 

approval provided by the State of 

Design Authority or its delegated agent 

specifically refer to this FAA AD. This 

change was intended to clarify the 

method of compliance and to provide 

operators with better visibility of repairs 

that are specifically developed and 

approved to correct the unsafe 

condition. In addition, we proposed to 

change the phrase ‘‘its delegated agent’’ 

to include a design approval holder 

(DAH) with State of Design Authority 

design organization approval (DOA), as 

applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized 

to approve required repairs for the 

proposed AD. 

No comments were provided to the 

NPRM (79 FR 7596, February 10, 2014) 

about these proposed changes. However, 

a comment was provided for another 

NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012–NM– 

101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 

2013), in which the commenter stated 

the following: ‘‘The proposed wording, 

being specific to repairs, eliminates the 

interpretation that Airbus messages are 

acceptable for approving minor 

deviations (corrective actions) needed 

during accomplishment of an AD 

mandated Airbus service bulletin.’’ 

This comment has made the FAA 

aware that some operators have 

misunderstood or misinterpreted the 

Airworthy Product paragraph to allow 

the owner/operator to use messages 

provided by the manufacturer as 

approval of deviations during the 

accomplishment of an AD-mandated 

action. The Airworthy Product 

paragraph does not approve messages or 

other information provided by the 

manufacturer for deviations to the 

requirements of the AD-mandated 

actions. The Airworthy Product 

paragraph only addresses the 

requirement to contact the manufacturer 

for corrective actions for the identified 

unsafe condition and does not cover 

deviations from other AD requirements. 

However, deviations to AD-required 

actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, 

and anyone may request the approval 

for an alternative method of compliance 

to the AD-required actions using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

To address this misunderstanding and 

misinterpretation of the Airworthy 

Product paragraph, we have changed 

that paragraph and retitled it 

‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer.’’ This 

paragraph now clarifies that for any 

requirement in this AD to obtain 

corrective actions from a manufacturer, 

the action must be accomplished using 

a method approved by the FAA, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), or Airbus’s EASA DOA. 

The Contacting the Manufacturer 

paragraph also clarifies that, if approved 

by the DOA, the approval must include 

the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA 

signature indicates that the data and 

information contained in the document 

are EASA-approved, which is also FAAapproved. Messages and other 

information provided by the 

manufacturer that do not contain the 

DOA-authorized signature approval are 

not EASA-approved, unless EASA 

directly approves the manufacturer’s 

message or other information. 

This clarification does not remove 

flexibility previously afforded by the 

Airworthy Product paragraph. 

Consistent with long-standing FAA 

policy, such flexibility was never 

intended for required actions. This is 

also consistent with the 

recommendation of the Airworthiness 

Directive Implementation Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee to increase 

flexibility in complying with ADs by 

identifying those actions in 

manufacturers’ service instructions that 

are ‘‘Required for Compliance’’ with 

ADs. We continue to work with 

manufacturers to implement this 

recommendation. But once we 

determine that an action is required, any 

deviation from the requirement must be 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance. 

Other commenters to the NPRM 

discussed previously, Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 

78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out 

that in many cases the foreign 

manufacturer’s service bulletin and the 

foreign authority’s MCAI might have 

been issued some time before the FAA 

AD. Therefore, the DOA might have 

provided U.S. operators with an 

approved repair, developed with full 

awareness of the unsafe condition, 

before the FAA AD is issued. Under 

these circumstances, to comply with the 

FAA AD, the operator would be 

required to go back to the 

manufacturer’s DOA and obtain a new 

approval document, adding time and 

expense to the compliance process with 

no safety benefit. 

Based on these comments, we 

removed the requirement that the DAHprovided repair specifically refer to this 

AD. Before adopting such a 

requirement, the FAA will coordinate 

with affected DAHs and verify they are 

prepared to implement means to ensure 

that their repair approvals consider the 

unsafe condition addressed in this AD. 

Any such requirements will be adopted 

through the normal AD rulemaking 

process, including notice-and-comment 

procedures, when appropriate. We also 

have decided not to include a generic 

reference to either the ‘‘delegated agent’’ 

or ‘‘DAH with State of Design Authority 

design organization approval,’’ but 

instead we have provided the specific 

delegation approval granted by the State 

of Design Authority for the DAH 

throughout this AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 7596, 

February 10, 2014) for correcting the 

unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 7596, 

February 10, 2014). 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 16 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product Cost on U.S. operators 

Inspection .......... 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 per inspection 

cycle.

$0 $1,020 $16,320 per inspection cycle. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

42654 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition action 

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): 

2014–14–05 Airbus: Amendment 39–17900; 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0004; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–143–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective August 27, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Model A320– 

211, –212, and –231 airplanes, certificated in 

any category, all manufacturer serial numbers 

up to 0136 inclusive. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

broken struts of the center wing box (CWB) 

on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct cracked or broken struts, 

which could result in strut failure and 

consequent reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections 

At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do a 

detailed inspection of each strut of the CWB 

for cracking, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–57–1149, Revision 01, 

dated February 12, 2013. Repeat the 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 16,800 flight cycles or 33,600 flight 

hours, whichever occurs first. 

(1) For airplanes on which the inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD has not 

been done as of the effective date of this AD: 

Do the inspection at the later of the times 

specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) 

of this AD. 

(i) Before the accumulation of 31,700 total 

flight cycles or 63,400 total flight hours since 

first flight, whichever occurs first. 

(ii) Within 1,250 flight cycles or 2,500 

flight hours after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first. 

(2) For airplanes on which the inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been 

done as of the effective date of this AD: Do 

the inspection within 16,800 flight cycles or 

33,600 flight hours after the most recent 

inspection, whichever occurs first. 

(h) Repair 

If any crack is found during any inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before 

further flight, repair 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). If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for actions 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those 

actions were performed before the effective 

date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–57–1149, dated April 1, 2008, which is 

not incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(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: 

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. 

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) 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 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0149, dated 

July 16, 2013, for related information. This 

MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#

!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0004-0002. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference may 

be viewed at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 42655 

(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 Service Bulletin A320–57–1149, 

Revision 01, dated February 12, 2013. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(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. 

(4) 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. 

(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 June 25, 

2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16535 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–1028; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–068–AD; Amendment 

39–17901; AD 2014–14–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus Model A318–111 and –112 

airplanes; Model A319–111, –112, –113, 

–114, and –115 airplanes; Model A320– 

111, –211, –212, and –214 airplanes; 

and Model A321–111, –112, –211, –212, 

and –213 airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by reports of broken aft 

engine mount retainers. This AD 

requires inspecting the aft engine mount 

retainers for surface finish, and for 

cracks and failure, and replacement if 

necessary. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent failure of retainer brackets of 

the aft engine mount and consequent 

loss of the locking feature of the nuts of 

the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins 

will result in the aft mount engine link 

no longer being secured to the aft engine 

mount. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

August 27, 2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of August 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA2013-1028; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC. 

For Airbus 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. 

For Goodrich Corporation service 

information identified in this AD, 

contact Goodrich Corporation, 

Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula 

Vista, CA 91910–2098; telephone 619– 

691–2719; email jan.lewis@

goodrich.com; Internet http://www.

goodrich.com/TechPubs. 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (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 A320–111, –211, –212, and –214 

airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, 

–211, –212, and –213 airplanes. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on December 18, 2013 (78 FR 

76572). 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0050, 

dated March 5, 2013 (referred to after 

this as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for the specified products. The MCAI 

states: 

During in-service inspections, several aft 

engine mount retainers, fitted on aeroplanes 

equipped with CFM56–5/5B engines, have 

been found broken. 

The results of the investigations highlight 

that two different types of surface finish have 

been applied (respectively bright and dull 

material finishes), and that dull finish 

adversely affects the strength of the retainer 

with regard to fatigue properties of the part. 

The pins which attach the engine link to the 

aft mount are secured by two nuts, which do 

not have a self-locking feature; this function 

is provided by the retainer brackets. In case 

of failure of the retainer bracket, the locking 

feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins 

is lost; as a result, these nuts could 

subsequently become loose. 

In case of full loss of the nuts, there is the 

potential to also lose the pins, in which case 

the aft mount link will no longer be secured 

to the aft engine mount. The same locking 

feature is used for the three link assemblies 

of the aft mount. 

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] 

AD requires a one-time detailed visual 

inspection (DVI) of the aft engine mount to 

identify the affected dull finish retainers [and 

for cracks and failure] and replace these 

[retainers] with serviceable retainers. This 

[EASA] AD also prohibits installation of any 

dull finish aft engine mount retainers. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;

D=FAA-2013-1028-0002. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

have considered the comment received. 

The following presents the comment 

received on the NPRM (78 FR 76572, 

December 18, 2013) and the FAA’s 

response to the comment. 

Request To Add Certain Retainer 

Brackets 

Mr. Michael Raphael stated that 

understanding of the issue (cracking or 

failure of the aft engine mount retainer) 

has changed since the preliminary 

discovery with dull brackets, and that 

bright brackets have been detected with 

the same issue. Mr. Raphael explained 

that vibration is the root cause, and the 

dull surface finish (with pitting) is a 

potential aggravating factor. Mr. Raphael 

also stated that EASA and its airplane 

type certificate holder are preparing a 

‘‘phase 2 containment’’ that is based on 

the latest technical findings. 

We infer that the commenter wants us 

to add brackets with the bright surface 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES