### 42716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules

(u) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6447; fax: 425–917–6590; email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 13,

2014. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–17324 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–2014–0455; Directorate Identifier 2014–NM–006–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes** 

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

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that 67during a full scale fatigue test, several broken frames in certain areas of the cargo compartment have been found, especially on the cargo floor supportfittings and open tack holes on the lefthand side. This proposed AD would require a rototest inspection of the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, modification of the fuselage, including doing all applicable related investigative actions, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane. **DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 8, 2014.

**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, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 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– 0455; 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 Operations 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 :**  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 :** 

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–2014–0455; Directorate Identifier 2014–NM–006–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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0310, dated December 20, 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 a full scale fatigue test, several broken frames in the cargo compartment area between Frame (FR) 50 and FR 63, have been found, especially on the cargo floor support fittings and open tack holes on [the] left hand side.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the frames in the cargo compartment area and of the cargo floor support fittings and open tack holes on the left hand (LH) side, and depending on findings the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also requires a modification, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.

The actions in this AD include a rototest inspection for cracking of the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, modification of the fuselage, including doing all applicable related investigative actions, and repair if necessary. Related investigative actions include rotating probe inspections for cracking of the holes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA–2014–0455.

Relevant Service Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–53–1257, dated December 21, 2012, and Service Bulletin A320–53– 1261, dated December 21, 2012. The


### 42717 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules

actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the
MCAI.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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 the same type design.
‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer’’ Paragraph in This Proposed 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 an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), 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 the 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.

One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), 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 proposed 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 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.
Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 847 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 471 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts (for the modification) would cost about $6,570 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $39,474,435, or $46,605 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed 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;


### 42718 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules

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–2014–0455; Directorate Identifier 2014–NM–006–AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by September
8, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

None.
(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A319– 111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports that during a full scale fatigue test, several broken frames in certain areas of the cargo compartment have been found, especially on the cargo floor support fittings and open tack holes on the left-hand side. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings 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) Inspection At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD: Do a rototest inspection for cracking of the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage between frame (FR) 50 and FR 63 (LH side only) for Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes, and A321 airplanes; and between FR 53 and FR 63 (LH side only) for Model A319 airplanes; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 53–1257, dated December 21, 2012. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(1) For airplanes that have equal to or more than 45,000 total flight cycles or 90,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD within 1,000 flight cycles or 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(2) For airplanes that have equal to or more than 36,200 total flight cycles or 72,400 total flight hours, but less than 45,000 total flight cycles and 90,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD within 2,000 flight cycles or 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, but no later than before the accumulation of 46,000 total flight cycles or 92,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(3) For airplanes that have less than 36,200 total flight cycles and 72,400 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD before exceeding 38,200 total flight cycles or 76,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(h) Modification

Before exceeding 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first: Modify the fuselage, including doing all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 53–1261, dated December 21, 2012. Do all related investigative actions before exceeding 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. Modification of the fuselage as required by this paragraph constitutes as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Corrective Action

If any crack is found during any inspection required by 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 DOAauthorized signature.
(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, 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 2013–0310, dated December 20, 2013, 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–2014–0455.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 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 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 July 16,

2014. John P. Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–17318 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**