Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13003 

submitted in accordance with part 72 of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Licensing 

Requirements for the Independent 

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, HighLevel Radioactive Waste, and ReactorRelated Greater Than Class C Waste,’’ 

(10 CFR part 72) Subpart L, ‘‘Approval 

of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,’’ and 

Subpart B, ‘‘License Application, Form, 

and Contents.’’ Draft SFST–ISG–26A 

proposed to revise the shielding and 

radiation protection review procedures 

contained in NUREG–1536, Revision 1, 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel 

Dry Storage Systems at a General 

License Facility,’’ and NUREG–1567, 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel 

Dry Storage Facilities.’’ 

The staff began writing draft SFST– 

ISG–26A as a response to an event 

involving the use of a high dose-rate 

transfer cask. Its first intent was to 

provide reviewers guidance on how to 

review these systems. The scope had 

been expanded to also provide NRC 

reviewers with guidance on performing 

graded reviews based on system dose 

rates which modify the review 

‘‘priority’’ as defined in NUREG–1536. 

The staff developed this part of the ISG 

in response to industry comments 

regarding the amount of details the staff 

reviewed in response to a 10 CFR part 

72 license, certificate or amendment 

application. 

The staff published a notice of 

opportunity for public comment on 

draft SFST–ISG–26A in the Federal 

Register on March 29, 2013 (78 

FR19148). The staff received two 

comments, with each commenter raising 

a significant number of substantive 

issues which has caused the staff to 

reconsider the need for and the clarity 

of the guidance. 

II. Discussion 

The staff considered the comments 

and has decided to defer pursuing 

action on the draft ISG. Thus, draft 

SFST–ISG–26A is being withdrawn. 

From the comments received, the staff 

concluded that the guidance as written 

is not clear and would require 

substantial revision to be well 

understood as well as meet the needs of 

the staff. Although the staff still finds 

that guidance regarding the issues 

addressed in draft SFST–ISG–26A 

would be useful, especially in relation 

to high dose-rate transfer casks, there 

are recent developments that also touch 

on some of these issues that the staff 

finds are appropriate to pursue in lieu 

of the ISG. This includes the staff’s 

consideration of a petition to make 

changes to 10 CFR Part 72 (PRM–72–7) 

and the staff’s consideration of an 

update to NUREG–1745, ‘‘Standard 

Format and Content for Technical 

Specifications for 10 CFR part 72 Cask 

Certificates of Compliance.’’ 

The staff finds withdrawing the draft 

ISG is appropriate considering the 

initiating event that caused the staff to 

write draft SFST–ISG–26A has thus far 

been an isolated event from several 

years ago, and the staff has not seen any 

applications for the use of high doserate transfer casks since then. However, 

the staff will continue to monitor for 

events or actions (particularly those 

involving transfer casks) that may 

indicate there is a need for the ISG prior 

to completion of, or in addition to, the 

other efforts. 

With regard to the review procedure 

priority levels, the staff currently finds 

that the generic priority levels in 

NUREG–1536 sufficiently meet the 

staff’s commitment of ensuring the 

appropriate level of effort for these 

reviews. However, the staff will also 

monitor the use of these procedures to 

determine any further need for 

enhancement. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of February 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mark D. Lombard, 

Director, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05017 Filed 3–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0137; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–135–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 A300 series airplanes; 

Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4– 

600R series airplanes; Model A300 C4– 

605R Variant F airplanes (collectively 

called Model A300–600 series 

airplanes); and Model A310 series 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of rupture of the 

uplock springs of the nose landing gear 

(NLG) and main landing gear (MLG) 

doors and legs. This proposed AD 

would require repetitive inspections of 

the uplock springs of the NLG and MLG 

doors and legs for broken and damaged 

springs, and corrective actions if 

necessary. We are proposing this AD to 

detect and correct improper free fall 

extension of the MLG or NLG, which 

could lead to possible loss of control of 

the airplane on the ground, and 

consequent damage to the airplane and 

injury to occupants. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 21, 2014. 

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, 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– 

0137; 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: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

13004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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–2014–0137; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NM–135–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 2013–0150, 

dated July 16, 2013 (referred to after this 

as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for the specified products. The MCAI 

states: 

Some cases of Nose Landing Gear (NLG) 

and Main Landing Gear (MLG) Door and Leg 

Uplock spring ruptures on A300, A310 or 

A300–600 aeroplanes have been reported in 

service. 

Springs within the uplock are used to 

either lock the gear or the door in the up 

position, or to participate in emergency 

mechanical unlocking. 

The springs are positioned in pairs, and in 

case of rupture of one spring the other one 

remains to fulfill the function, whereas the 

rupture of both springs will disable the 

locking function or the emergency unlocking 

function. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could prevent proper free fall 

extension of the MLG or NLG, possibly 

leading to loss of control of the aeroplane on 

the ground, consequently resulting in damage 

to the aeroplane and injury to occupants. 

For the reason described above, this 

[EASA] AD requires [repetitive] detailed 

visual inspection[s] of the NLG and MLG 

Door and Leg Uplock springs [for broken and 

damaged springs] and, depending of findings, 

their replacement. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating it in Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0137. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Mandatory Service 

Bulletins A300–32–0465, A300–32– 

6111, and A310–32–2147, all Revision 

01, all dated April 25, 2013. The 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. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 156 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts 

cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Repetitive inspections ...... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection .. $0 $85 per inspection .......... $13,260 per inspection. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary replacement would take about 

9 work-hours for a cost of $765 per 

product. The cost of parts is minimal. 

We have no way of determining the 

number of aircraft that might need this 

action. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13005 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2014–0137; 

Directorate Identifier 2013–NM–135–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by April 21, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), 

(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) of this AD; certificated 

in any category; all serial numbers. 

(1) Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, 

B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 

airplanes. 

(2) Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, 

and B4–622 airplanes. 

(3) Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R 

airplanes. 

(4) Model A300 F4–605R and F4–622R 

airplanes. 

(5) Model A300 C4–605R Variant F 

airplanes. 

(6) Model A310–203, –204, –221, –222, 

–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 32, Landing gear. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

rupture of the uplock springs of the nose 

landing gear (NLG) and main landing gear 

(MLG) doors and legs. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct improper free fall 

extension of the MLG or NLG, which could 

lead to possible loss of control of the airplane 

on the ground, and consequent damage to the 

airplane and injury to occupants. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections 

Within 18 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection of 

the uplock springs of the MLG and NLG legs 

and doors for broken and damaged springs, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the applicable service 

information identified in paragraph (g)(1), 

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

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 18 months. 

(1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–32–0465, Revision 01, dated April 25, 

2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes). 

(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–32–6111, Revision 01, dated April 25, 

2013 (for Model A300–600 series airplanes). 

(3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A310–32–2147, Revision 01, dated April 25, 

2013 (for Model A310 series airplanes). 

(h) Corrective Actions 

The corrective actions required by 

paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD 

do not constitute terminating actions for the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD. 

(1) If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, one spring on the 

MLG or NLG door uplock is found broken or 

damaged, within 2 months after the 

inspection, replace the affected MLG or NLG 

door uplock, as applicable, with a serviceable 

part, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin identified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. 

(2) If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, one spring on the 

MLG or NLG leg uplock is found broken or 

damaged, repeat the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 50 flight cycles. 

Replacement of any affected leg uplock, as 

required by paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of 

this AD, as applicable, constitutes 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (h)(2) of 

this AD. 

(i) If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, the second free 

fall spring on the MLG or NLG leg uplock is 

found broken or damaged, before further 

flight, replace the affected MLG or NLG leg 

uplock, as applicable, with a serviceable part, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the applicable service bulletin 

identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) 

of this AD. 

(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles after doing 

the inspection required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD during which the spring has been 

found broken, replace the affected MLG or 

NLG leg uplock, as applicable, with a 

serviceable part, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin identified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. 

(3) If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, two free fall springs 

on the same MLG or NLG leg uplock are 

found broken or damaged, before further 

flight, replace the affected MLG or NLG leg 

uplock, as applicable, with a serviceable part, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the applicable service bulletin 

identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) 

of this AD. 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

applicable actions required by paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of this AD, if those actions were 

performed before the effective date of this AD 

using the applicable service information 

identified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) 

of this AD. 

(1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–32–0465, dated July 20, 2012. 

(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A300–32–6111, dated July 20, 2012. 

(3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A310–32–2147, dated July 20, 2012. 

(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) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, use these actions if they are 

FAA-approved. Corrective actions are 

considered FAA-approved if they were 

approved by the State of Design Authority (or 

its delegated agent or the Design Approval 

Holder with a State of Design Authority’s 

design organization approval, as applicable). 

You are required to ensure the product is 

airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European 

Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness 

Directive 2013–0150, dated July 16, 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 it in Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0137. 

(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 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 February 

26, 2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04955 Filed 3–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS