59636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0058; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–116–AD; Amendment 

39–17977; AD 2014–20–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 94–12–03 

for certain Airbus Model A320 series 

airplanes. AD 94–12–03 required 

modification of the belly fairing 

structure. This new AD requires 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

four titanium angles between the belly 

fairing and the keel beam side panel, an 

inspection for cracking of the open 

holes if any cracking is found in the 

titanium angles, and repair or 

replacement if necessary; this new AD 

also expands the applicability of AD 94– 

12–03. This AD was prompted by 

reports of cracks at the lower riveting of 

the four titanium angles that connect the 

belly fairing to the keel beam side 

panels on both sides of the fuselage. We 

are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

cracking of the titanium angles that 

connect the belly fairing to the keel 

beam side panels on both sides of the 

fuselage, which could affect the 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 7, 2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of November 7, 2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain other publications listed in 

this AD as of January 10, 1994 (59 FR 

64875, December 10, 1993). 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0058; 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 to supersede AD 94–12–03, 

Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 28763, 

June 3, 1994). AD 94–12–03 applied to 

Model A320 series airplanes having 

serial numbers (S/Ns) 003 through 092 

inclusive. These serial numbers apply to 

Model A320–111, –211, and –231 series 

airplanes. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on February 26, 2014 

(79 FR 10707). 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0122, 

dated June 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 the fatigue test campaign of the 

A320 family type design, cracks have been 

found at the lower riveting of the four 

titanium angles which connect the belly 

fairing to the keel beam side panels between 

frames FR40 and FR42, on both sides of the 

fuselage. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could affect the structural integrity 

of the aeroplane. 

In 1992, [Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile] DGAC France issued AD 92–201–030 

(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/19922010tb_

superseded.pdf/AD_F-1992-201-030_1) 

(which corresponds to FAA AD 94–12–03, 

Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 

1994)) to require reinforcement of the belly 

fairing structure, which addressed part of the 

unsafe condition. 

For the reason described above, this 

[EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC 

France AD 92–201–030, which is superseded, 

and requires repetitive detailed inspections 

[for cracking] of the affected titanium angles 

and, depending on findings, repair or 

replacement of parts. 

As an option to extend the repetitive 

inspection interval, after the first 

detailed inspection is accomplished and 

on condition of no crack findings, this 

AD allows operators to remove the four 

titanium angles, perform a rototest for 

cracking on the open holes and, 

provided no cracks are found on the 

open holes, install new titanium angles, 

followed by post-modification detailed 

inspections of the new titanium angles. 

For any titanium angle crack findings, 

this AD requires removing any cracked 

angle, performing a rototest for cracking 

on the open holes and, provided no 

cracks are found, installing a new 

titanium angle, followed by detailed 

inspections of the new titanium angles. 

For any open hole cracking found 

during any rototest required by this AD, 

this AD requires repairing any cracking 

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). 

This AD expands the applicability of 

AD 94–12–03, Amendment 39–8930 (59 

FR 28763, June 3, 1994), to include all 

Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and 

A321 series airplanes. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0058- 

0002. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (79 FR 10707, 

February 26, 2014) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Extend Proposed 

Compliance Time for Inspection of 

Titanium Angles 

Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that 

we extend the compliance time for the 

inspection of the titanium angles 

specified in paragraph (h)(3) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 10707, February 

26, 2014). DAL stated that extending 

this compliance time from 3,000 flight 

cycles or 6,000 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first, to 5,000 flight cycles or 

10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs 

first, would match the repetitive interval 

for the detailed inspection on those 

airplanes that have not had the 

modification accomplished, and it 

would give DAL and other operators the 

opportunity to schedule these 

inspections in a hangar environment. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to extend the compliance time 

specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. 

DAL has not provided data to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59637 

substantiate that extending this 

compliance time would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. This 

compliance time was developed after 

analyzing risk to the fleet, availability of 

in-service information and feasibility of 

performing inspection. We consider the 

overall risk to the fleet, including the 

severity of the failure and the likelihood 

of the failure’s occurrence, to calculate 

appropriate compliance times. However, 

under the provisions of paragraph (o)(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 

extension would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. We have not changed 

this final rule in this regard. 

Request To Allow Special Flight Permit 

When Cracking Is Found 

DAL requested that we add a 

provision in the NPRM (79 FR 10707, 

February 26, 2014) to allow operators to 

ferry airplanes with cracking found 

during the inspection specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD. DAL stated 

that a ferry flight would allow an 

airplane to be moved to a more suitable 

location for maintenance in the event 

damage is found. DAL also stated that 

the ferry flight is necessary due to the 

extensive level of access and 

disassembly. 

We agree with the intent behind the 

commenter’s request, but find it 

unnecessary to include a special flight 

provision in this AD. Special flight 

permits are currently allowed under 

Section 39.23 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 39.23), unless 

specifically prohibited or limited by an 

AD. No change is necessary to this final 

rule in this regard. 

‘‘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 

Authority (or its delegated agent) are 

considered to be FAA-approved. 

In the NPRM (79 FR 10707, February 

26, 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 10707, February 26, 2014) 

about these proposed changes. However, 

a comment was provided for an NPRM 

having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM– 

101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 

2013). 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 the 

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 actions must be 

accomplished using a method approved 

by the FAA, the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus’s 

EASA Design Organization Approval 

(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 

having 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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
59638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 available data, 

including the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this 

final rule 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 

10707, February 26, 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 10707, 

February 26, 2014). 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 851 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The actions that were required by AD 

94–12–03, Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 

28763, June 3, 1994), and retained in 

this AD take about 288 work-hours per 

product, at an average labor rate of $85 

per work-hour. Required parts cost 

about $1,045 per product. Based on 

these figures, the estimated cost of the 

actions that were required by AD 94– 

12–03 is $25,525 per product. 

We also estimate that it will take 

about 7 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic new 

requirements of this AD. The average 

labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based 

on these figures, we estimate the cost of 

this AD on U.S. operators to be 

$506,345, or $595 per product. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition and 

optional 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 

We determined that 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 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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0058; 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 

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. 

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 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

94–12–03, Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 

28763, June 3, 1994), and adding the 

following new AD: 

2014–20–04 Airbus: Amendment 39–17977. 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0058; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–116–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective November 7, 

2014 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 94–12–03, 

Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 

1994). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes 

specified 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 A320–111, –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 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

at the lower riveting of the four titanium 

angles that connect the belly fairing to the 

keel beam side panels on both sides of the 

fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracking of the titanium angles that 

connect the belly fairing to the keel beam 

side panels on both sides of the fuselage, 

which could affect the structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Modification 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of AD 94–12–03, Amendment 

39–8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 1994), with 

new service information. For Model A320– 

111, –211, and –231 series airplanes, 

manufacturer serial numbers 003 through 092 

inclusive: Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 

total landings on the airplane, or within 300 

days after January 10, 1994 (the effective date 

of AD 93–24–11, Amendment 39–8760 (58 

FR 64875, December 10, 1993)), whichever 

occurs later, modify the belly fairing 

structure, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of an Airbus 

service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), 

(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. As of the effective 

date of this AD, use only the Airbus service 

bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this 

AD. 

(1) Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1014, dated June 25, 1992. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59639 

(2) Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1014, Revision 1, dated May 26, 1993. 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1014, 

Revision 2, dated September 1, 1994. 

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive 

Inspection 

At the latest of the compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and 

(h)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for 

cracking of the four titanium angles between 

the belly fairing and the keel beam side 

panel, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total 

flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours, 

whichever occurs first after first flight of the 

airplane. 

(2) Within 30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 

flight hours, whichever occurs first after 

modification of the airplane as required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, or after installation 

of new titanium angles, provided that, prior 

to installation, a rototest for cracking on the 

open holes has been accomplished with no 

crack findings, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(3) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 6,000 

flight hours, whichever occurs first after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(i) New Requirement of This AD: PostInspection Actions for No Crack Findings 

If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD, there is no crack 

finding: Accomplish the actions specified in 

either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Repeat the inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD at intervals not to 

exceed 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight 

hours, whichever occurs first 

(2) Before further flight after the inspection 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD, remove 

all inspected titanium angles, accomplish a 

rototest for cracking on the open holes and, 

provided no cracks are found, install new 

titanium angles, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(j) New Requirement of This AD: PostInspection Actions for Any Crack Findings 

If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD, there is any crack 

finding: Before further flight, remove the 

affected titanium angle(s), accomplish a 

rototest for cracking on the open holes, and, 

provided no cracks are found, install new 

titanium angles, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(k) New Requirement of This AD: PostInstallation Repetitive Inspections 

For airplanes on which new titanium 

angles were installed as specified in 

paragraph (i)(2) or (j) of this AD: Within 

30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours, 

whichever occurs first after the installation, 

accomplish a detailed inspection for cracking 

of the four titanium angles between the belly 

fairing and the keel beam side panel, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1259, dated November 6, 2012. Repeat the 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight 

hours, whichever occurs first. 

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Post 

Inspection Actions for Any Crack Findings 

During Post-Installation Inspections 

If, during any inspection as required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD, there is any crack 

finding: Before further flight, remove the 

affected titanium angles, accomplish a 

rototest for cracking on the open holes, and, 

provided no cracks are found, install new 

titanium angles, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective 

Action for Rototest Crack Finding 

If, during any rototest as required by 

paragraph (i), (j), or (l) of this AD, any crack 

is found: 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). 

(n) New Provision of This AD: No 

Termination Action for Repetitive 

Inspections 

Repair or replacement of parts as specified 

in this AD does not terminate the repetitive 

inspections required by this AD. 

(o) 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. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, 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. 

(p) Related Information 

Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European 

Aviation Safety Agency, Airworthiness 

Directive 2013–0122, dated June 5, 2013, for 

related information. You may examine the 

MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0058-0002. 

(q) 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. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on November 7, 2014. 

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1014, 

Revision 2, dated September 1, 1994, 

including supplementary page 7A. Pages 1– 

3, 15, 19, 20, and 25 of this document are 

identified as Revision 2, dated September 1, 

1994; pages 4–8, 10, 12, 16–18, and 21–24 are 

identified as Revision 1, dated May 26, 1993; 

and pages 9, 11, 13, 14, and 26 are identified 

as the original, dated June 25, 1992. 

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, 

dated November 6, 2012. 

(4) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on January 10, 1994 (59 FR 

64875, December 10, 1993). 

(i) Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1014, dated June 25, 1992. 

(ii) Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin 

A320–53–1014, Revision 1, dated May 26, 

1993. 

(5) 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. 

(6) 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. 

(7) 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 

September 19, 2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23139 Filed 10–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES