Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 44241 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0143; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–113–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for all Airbus Model A300 B4–603, B4– 

620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, F4– 

605R, F4–622R, and C4–605R variant F 

airplanes. The NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive detailed inspections of 

the lower frame fittings, related 

investigative actions, and corrective 

actions if necessary. The NPRM was 

prompted by reports of cracks in the 

frame base fittings connecting the frame 

lower positions to the center wing box. 

This action revises the NPRM by 

replacing the proposed requirements 

with new repetitive detailed inspections 

for cracking of the lower frame fittings 

of the frame foot, and replacement with 

a new frame foot if cracking is found. 

This action also provides optional 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to detect 

and correct cracking of the lower frame 

fittings, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. Since 

these actions impose an additional 

burden over those proposed in the 

NPRM, we are reopening the comment 

period to allow the public the chance to 

comment on these proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this SNPRM by August 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus 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. You 

may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0143; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; 

fax 425–227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0143; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–113–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

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 A300 B4–603, 

B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, 

F4–605R, F4–622R, and C4–605R 

variant F airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 19, 2014 (79 FR 15266) (‘‘the 

NPRM’’). 

The NPRM was prompted by reports 

of cracks in the frame base fittings 

connecting the frame lower positions to 

the center wing box. The NPRM 

proposed to require repetitive detailed 

inspections of the lower frame fittings, 

related investigative actions, and 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we have 

determined that repairs to address 

cracking in the frame foot area found 

during accomplishment of the detailed 

inspection of the lower frame fittings 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–53–6111, Revision 05, including 

Appendix 01, dated January 28, 2013, 

are not adequate to prevent further 

cracking. The European Aviation Safety 

Agency, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2015–0217, dated October 30, 

2015 (referred to after this as the 

Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness 

Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct 

an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model 

A300 B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4– 

605R, B4–622R, F4–605R, F4–622R, and 

C4–605R variant F airplanes. The MCAI 

states: 

During accomplishment of Airbus Service 

Bulletin (SB) A300–53–6111 (EASA AD 

2012–0103), addressing detailed visual 

inspections of the lower frame fittings 

between Frame (FR) 41 and FR46, a crack 

was detected on one A300–600 aeroplane in 

the area 2 of the foot of FR46 at junction 

radius level. 

This frame, previously repaired due to a 

crack finding in the frame foot area 1, was 

not due to be inspected before reaching the 

post-repair inspection threshold, i.e. 45,400 

flight cycles since repair embodiment. 

Further investigation determined that the 

repairs specified in Airbus SB A300–53–6111 

were of limited effect to prevent cracking in 

the frame foot area 2. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could affect the structural integrity 

of the fuselage of all aeroplanes operated up 

to the extended service goal (ESG). 

As a temporary action and until an 

improvement of the existing repairs was 

made available, EASA issued AD 2012–0229 

[AD * * *] to require a one-time detailed 

inspection (DET) of the frame feet that were 

repaired in accordance with Airbus SB 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
44242 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

A300–53–6111, and the reporting of findings 

to Airbus. 

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a 

detailed study was performed resulting in the 

development of a new inspection 

programme. 

Consequently, Airbus cancelled SB A300– 

53–6111 and replaced it with SB A300–53– 

6177, introducing repetitive DET of the lower 

frame fittings between FR41 and FR46 for the 

entire fleet. In addition to this new 

inspection programme, Airbus designed a 

new frame foot which can be installed on 

aeroplanes through Airbus SB A300–53– 

6176. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD supersedes EASA AD 2012–0103, 

not retaining its requirements, and instead 

requires the new inspection programme for 

the lower frame fittings. This [EASA] AD also 

introduces an optional terminating action for 

the repetitive inspections required by the 

[EASA] AD. 

Corrective actions include replacing 

any cracked lower frame fittings with a 

new frame foot. You may examine the 

MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating FAA–2014– 

0143. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A300–53–6177, dated May 20, 2015. 

The service information describes 

procedures for repetitive detailed 

inspections for cracking of the lower 

frame fittings between FR41 and FR46. 

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin 

A300–53–6176, dated May 20, 2015. 

The service information describes 

procedures for replacing all lower frame 

feet between frame FR41 and FR46 with 

new, improved frame feet. This service 

information is reasonably available 

because the interested parties have 

access to it through their normal course 

of business or by the means identified 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this proposed 

AD. We considered the comments 

received. 

Request To Revise Method Used To 

Determine Compliance Times 

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested 

that the compliance times in the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised 

to be less complex. UPS stated that the 

proposed compliance times contain a 

method known as ‘‘Average Flight 

Time’’ (AFT) which results in a variable 

flight hour limit and adds an 

unnecessary complexity to the threshold 

table and subsequent inspection actions. 

UPS added that use of the AFT method, 

along with a lack of standard procedures 

for implementing the AFT method 

would create uncertainty for operators 

and inspectors trying to determine the 

correct compliance time. UPS stated 

that a defined threshold and repetitive 

inspection interval would adequately 

provide for timely detection of possible 

damage. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request to revise the compliance times 

in this proposed AD. The compliance 

times in this proposed AD correspond 

with those in the MCAI AD, which 

refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

53–6177, dated May 20, 2015. In Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–53–6177, dated 

May 20, 2015, the inspection thresholds 

and intervals are based on the 

accumulation of both flight cycles and 

flight hours, and are listed in tables 

appropriately grouping airplanes with 

average flight time utilization above 1.5 

hours, and airplanes with average flight 

time utilization at or below 1.5 hours. 

We have determined these compliance 

times acceptable for this proposed AD. 

However, we do acknowledge that a 

fixed compliance time for a fleet could 

be easier for operators to schedule and 

record compliance. Therefore, under the 

provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this 

proposed AD, we will consider requests 

for approval of an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) if a proposal is 

submitted that is supported by technical 

data that includes fatigue and damage 

tolerance analysis. We have not changed 

this proposed AD in this regard. 

Request To Remove Reporting 

Requirement 

FedEx objected to the reporting 

requirement in the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM). 

We infer that FedEx wants the 

reporting requirement removed. We 

disagree that the reporting requirement 

should be removed from this proposed 

AD. We have determined that reporting 

the inspection findings will enable the 

manufacturer to obtain better insight 

into the extent of the cracking. We have 

made no change to this proposed AD in 

this regard. 

Request To Remove Requirement To 

Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals 

UPS requested that we revise the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) to remove 

the requirement to include the AD 

reference in repair approvals. UPS noted 

its concerns that the NPRM will 

increase requests for approval of 

alternative methods of compliance 

(AMOCs) and result in delays to other 

services and actions addressed by the 

FAA on a daily basis. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request to remove from this proposed 

AD the requirement that repair 

approvals must specifically refer to 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 proposed AD (in the NPRM) 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 ‘‘the Design Approval Holder 

(DAH) with a State of Design 

Authority’s design organization 

approval (DOA)’’ to refer to a DAH 

authorized to approve required repairs 

for the AD. 

In its comments to the proposed AD 

(in the NPRM), UPS stated the 

following: ‘‘The proposed wording, 

being specific to repairs, eliminates the 

interpretation that Airbus messages or 

other approved EASA documents are 

acceptable for approving minor 

deviations (corrective actions) needed 

during accomplishment of a[n 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. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 44243 

However, deviations to AD-required 

actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, 

and anyone may request the approval 

for an AMOC 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 actions must be accomplished using 

a method approved by the FAA, 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 afforded previously 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 AD 

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 AMOC. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This SNPRM 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of these same 

type designs. 

Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the NPRM. As a 

result, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

the public to comment on this SNPRM. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this SNPRM affects 

123 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate that it would take about 

541 work-hours per product to comply 

with the basic requirements of this 

SNPRM, and 1 work-hour per product 

for reporting. The average labor rate is 

$85 per work-hour. Required parts 

would cost about $0 per product. Based 

on these figures, we estimate the cost of 

this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be 

$5,666,610, or $46,070 per product. 

We estimate that the optional 

terminating modification would take 

about 529 work-hours and require parts 

costing $131,500, for a cost of $176,465. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a current valid 

OMB control number. The control 

number for the collection of information 

required by this proposed AD is 2120– 

0056. The paperwork cost associated 

with this proposed AD has been 

detailed in the Costs of Compliance 

section of this document and includes 

time for reviewing instructions, as well 

as completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. Therefore, all 

reporting associated with this proposed 

AD is mandatory. Comments concerning 

the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden 

should be directed to the FAA at 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20591, ATTN: Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

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 proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2014–0143; 

Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–113–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by August 22, 

2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4– 

603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, 

F4–605R, F4–622R, and C4–605R variant F 

airplanes; certificated in any category; all 

serial numbers. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
44244 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

in the frame base fittings connecting the 

frame lower positions to the center wing box. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

cracking of the lower frame fittings, which 

could result in reduced structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Replacement 

If Necessary 

At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–53–6177, dated May 

20, 2015, except where Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–53–6177, dated May 20, 2015, 

specifies a compliance time ‘‘from issuance 

of Revision 04 of Service Bulletin A300–53– 

6111,’’ this AD requires compliance within 

the specified compliance time after the 

effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed 

inspection for cracking of the lower frame 

fittings between frame (FR) 41 and FR46 of 

the frame foot, and if any crack is found, 

before further flight, replace with a new 

frame foot, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–53–6177, dated May 

20, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

the applicable intervals specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–53–6177, dated May 

20, 2015. 

(h) Reporting 

At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD: Submit 

a report of the findings (both positive and 

negative) of each inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD. Send the report to 

Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online 

Application on Airbus World (https://

w3.airbus.com). 

(1) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(i) Optional Terminating Action 

Replacement of all lower frame feet 

between FR41 and FR46, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–53–6176, dated May 

20, 2015, terminates the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of 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: 

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–2125. 

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. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: A federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2015–0217, dated 

October 30, 2015, for related information. 

This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0143. 

(2) 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. 

You may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 23, 

2016. 

Dorr M. Anderson, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15928 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–8161; Directorate 

Identifier 2016–CE–018–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; REIMS 

AVIATION S.A. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

REIMS AVIATION S.A. Model F406 

airplanes. This proposed AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as cracks found in the 

horizontal stabilizer rear attach 

structure and the vertical fin rear spar 

attach structure. We are issuing this 

proposed AD to require actions to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact ASI Aviation, 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS