### 49431 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.
The Special Conditions

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type-certification basis for Airbus Model A350–900 series airplanes.

In addition to complying with 14 CFRpart 25 regulations governing the firesafety performance of the fuel tanks, wings, and nacelle, the Airbus Model A350–900 series airplane must demonstrate acceptable post-crash survivability in the event the wings are exposed to a large fuel-fed ground fire. Airbus must demonstrate that the wing and fuel-tank design can endure an external fuel-fed pool fire for at least five minutes. This must be demonstrated for minimum fuel loads (not less than reserve fuel levels) and maximum fuel loads (maximum-range fuel quantities), and other identified critical fuel loads. Considerations mustinclude fuel-tank flammability, burnthrough resistance, wing structuralstrength retention properties, and autoignition threats during a ground-fire event for the required time duration.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August
1, 2014. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–19823 Filed 8–20–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2014–0124; Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–197–AD; Amendment**  **39–17944; AD 2014–16–20]**

**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 A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.

**DATES :**  This AD becomes effective September 25, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0124; 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 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 :** 

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 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11358). The NPRM was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0233, dated November 7, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The results of the Extended Service Goal (ESG) exercise for A300 series aeroplanes (75,000 flight hours (FH) or 48,000 flight cycles (FC), whichever occurs first) identified certain operational tests as Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), necessary to ensure the safety objectives for aeroplanes which have accumulated or exceeded 60,000 FH.

These ALI are not fully new, since all nine tasks derive from existing Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) tasks. Consequently, the intervals of those nine tasks can no longer be escalated or retained at an interval higher than that specified in this [EASA] AD for each task. Failure to comply with these tasks within the established maximum intervals could be detrimental to the safety of the affected aeroplanes.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the implementation of nine specific operational ALI test for aeroplanes which have accumulated or exceeded 60,000 FH.

In addition, Airbus performed an analysis of the impacts of ESG activities on A300 series aeroplanes and, based on the results, this [EASA] AD publishes an operational life of 75,000 FH or 48,000 FC, whichever occurs first, applicable to A300 system installations.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0124-

0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28, 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 Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28, 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.


### 49432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28, 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 documentare 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, weremoved 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 11358, February 28, 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 11358, February 28, 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 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $595, or $85 per product.
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,


### 49433 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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-2014-0124; 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2014–16–20 Airbus: Amendment 39–17944. Docket No. FAA–2014–0124; Directorate
Identifier 2012–NM–197–AD.

(a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective September 25,

2014.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2– 1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. (d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05 Periodic Inspections; Code 22, Auto Flight; Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended service goal
activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already
done.

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. The compliance time for doing the initial actions specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is before 60,000 total flight hours accumulated on the airplane, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.



### TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### PARAGRAPH 

### (g) OF 

### THIS 

### AD: I NTERVALS FOR 

### N EW 

### A IRWORTHINESS 

### L IMITATION 

### I TEMS

Maintenanceplanning document task No. Task description Interval (not to exceed) Aircraft maintenance manual

reference

273311 0503 1 ARTIFICIAL FEEL-ELEVATOR—Operational test of pitch artificial feel by comparing qualitatively operating loads in high-speed and low-speed configurations (with each individual hydraulic system). 2,500 flight hours ...... 273300/501

273313 0503 1 COMPUTER-ARTIFICIAL FEEL—Operational test of artificial feel ‘‘pitch feel’’ and ‘‘rudder travel’’ monitoring circuits (warning light test and indicating system test). 3,500 flight hours ...... 272300/501
and 273300/501 222100 0503 1 YAW DAMPER—Operational test to verify correct operation of mechanical control between yaw damper system 2 and the rudder. 80 flight hours ........... 222100/501

222600 0503 1 YAW DAMPER—Operational test to verify correct operation of mechanical control between yaw damper system 2 and the rudder. 80 flight hours ........... 222600/501

272411 0503 1 SERVO CONTROL-RUDDER—Operational test of rudder servo controls (with individual hydraulic system) by moving right-hand (RH) rudder pedal full forward andvisually observe that rudder moves to the right. Check that rudder travel is confirmed on the flight control position indicator. Release RH pedal. Repeat above test by moving left-hand rudder pedal. 250 flight hours ......... 271400/501

275400 0503 1 FLAP ASYMMETRY—Operational test of flap asymmetry monitoring circuit (include solenoid operation). 500 flight hours .......... 275400/501

275400 0503 2 FLAP PRESSURE-OFF BRAKE—Operational test of pressure-off brake ................. 1,000 flight hours ...... 275400/501 278300 0503 1 SLAT ASYMMETRY—Operational test of slat asymmetry monitoring circuit ............ 500 flight hours ......... 278300/50 1 278300 0503 2 SLAT PRESSURE-OFF BRAKE—Operational test of pressure-off brake ................. 1,000 flight hours ...... 278300/501

(h) Airplane Airworthiness Limitation

As of the effective date of this AD, do not operate any airplane beyond 75,000 total flight hours or 48,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) 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 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must


### 49434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012–0233, dated November 7, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0124-0002.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

None.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August
4, 2014. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–19549 Filed 8–20–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2013–1065; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–230–AD; Amendment**  **39–17915; AD 2014—15–13]**

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005–15– 04 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–1A11 (CL–600), CL–600–2A12 (CL–601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601– 3A, CL–601–3R, and CL–604 Variants) airplanes. AD 2005–15–04 required operators to assign serial numbers or part numbers to certain landing gear parts; establish the number of landings on the parts, if necessary; and revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to reflect the new life limits of the landing gear parts. This new AD adds airplanes to the applicability, requires operators to assign serial numbers or part numbers to certain additional landing gear parts to establish the number of landings on the parts if necessary, and requires operators to record in all required airplane technical records and manuals the new part numbers, serial numbers, and landings assigned to these parts. This AD was prompted by reports that landing gear parts that have safe-life limits but do not have serial numbers or part numbers can be removed from one landing gear and re-installed on another, making tracking difficult. We are issuing this AD to prevent life-limited landing gear parts from being used beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing gear.

**DATES :**  This AD becomes effective September 25, 2014.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 25, 2014.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 30, 2005 (70 FR 43032, July 26, 2005).

**ADDRESSES :**  You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1065; 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 Bombardier, Inc./Canadair service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Co ˆ teVertu Road West, Dorval, Que  ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166–8910; phone: 703–450–8233; fax: 703–404–1621; Internet: https:// techpubs.services/messier-dowty.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 :**  Andreas Rambalakos, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228–7345; fax (516) 794–5531.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2005–15–04, Amendment 39–14193 (70 FR 43032, July 26, 2005). AD 2005–15–04 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL– 600–1A11 (CL–600), CL–600–2A12 (CL– 601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A, CL–601–3R, and CL–604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79329). The NPRM was prompted by reports that landing gear parts that have safe-life limits but do not have serial numbers or part numbers can be removed from one landing gear and re-installed on another, making tracking difficult. The NPRM proposed to add airplanes to the applicability, require operators to assign serial numbers or part numbers to certain additional landing gear parts to establish the number of landings on the parts if necessary, and requires operators to record in all required airplane technical records and manuals the new part numbers, serial numbers, and landings assigned to these parts. Weare issuing this AD to prevent lifelimited landing gear parts from being used beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing

gear.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directives CF– 2003–18R2, dated September 28, 2011; CF–2003–20R1, dated September 28, 2011; and CF–2003–21R2, dated September 28, 2011 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’); to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL– 600–1A11 (CL–600), CL–600–2A12 (CL– 601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A, CL–601–3R, and CL–604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Certain landing gear parts that are listed in the aeroplane model Airworthiness Limitations Section, as safe life items with structural life limits, could be rotable and may not have been serialized, making tracking difficult. This [Canadian airworthiness] directive mandates that such parts be serialized. This [Canadian airworthiness] directive also provides the procedure to determine the number of landings for those parts where the service history cannot be established.

* * * * *

[T]his [Canadian Airworthiness] directive * * * mandate[s] serialization of * * * additional landing gear parts. This AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. The unsafe condition is using life-limited landing gear parts beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing gear. You may examine the MCAI in the