Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 16255 

When a statement identical to that in figure 

1 to this paragraph has been included in the 

general revisions of the AFM, the general 

revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and 

the copy of this AD may be removed from the 

AFM. Accomplishing the revision required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the 

requirements of this paragraph, and after the 

revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD 

has been done, before further flight, remove 

the revision required by this paragraph. 

FIGURE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (g) OF THIS

AD—RETAINED AFM LANGUAGE

If radio-altimeter #1 lock-up conditions 

occur in flight, revert to the correct radioaltimeter output, in accordance with the 

instructions of Falcon 7X AFM procedure 

3–140–65B and 3–140–70A. 

Dispatch of the airplane with any radio-altimeter inoperative is prohibited. 

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Revision 

of the AFM 

For airplanes on which M0566 or Dassault 

Service Bulletin Falcon 7X–100 has been 

accomplished: Within 30 days after the 

effective date of this AD, do the actions 

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

this AD. 

(1) Revise the Limitations Section of the 

Dassault Falcon 7X AFM to include the 

statement in figure 2 to this paragraph. This 

may be done by inserting a copy of this AD 

in the AFM. Doing this revision terminates 

the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD 

and the revision required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD must be removed. When a statement 

identical to that in figure 2 to this paragraph 

has been included in the general revisions of 

the AFM, the general revisions may be 

inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this 

AD may be removed from the AFM. 

FIGURE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (h)(1) OF

THIS AD—NEW AFM LANGUAGE

If radio-altimeter miscompare indication occurs in flight, revert to the correct radioaltimeter output, in accordance with the 

instructions of Falcon 7X AFM procedure 

3–140–70A. 

Dispatch of the airplane with any radio-altimeter inoperative is prohibited. 

(2) Revise the Abnormal Procedures 

section to include Procedure 3–140–70A, 

‘‘Avionics—Sensor miscompare (A/C with 

M566),’’ Issue 2, of Section 3—Abnormal 

Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X 

Airplane Flight Manual, DGT 105608, 

Revision 15, dated January 30, 2012; or 

Procedure 3–140–70A, ‘‘Avionics—Sensor 

miscompare,’’ Issue 4, of Section 3— 

Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 

7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, 

Revision 18, dated November 15, 2013; into 

the AFM. 

(i) 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: 

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- 

AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

(i) 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. 

(ii) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2011–13–07, 

Amendment 39–16730 (76 FR 36283, June 

22, 2011), are approved as alternative 

methods of compliance with this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, for any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, the action must be 

accomplished using a method approved by 

the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Dassault Aviation’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(j) Related Information 

Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2009–0208R2, dated 

May 22, 2012, for related information. You 

may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on 

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

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032-0002. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Procedure 3–140–70A, ‘‘Avionics— 

Sensor miscompare (A/C with M566),’’ Issue 

2, of Section 3—Abnormal Procedures, of the 

Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, 

DGT 105608, Revision 15, dated January 30, 

2012. 

(ii) Procedure 3–140–70A, ‘‘Avionics— 

Sensor miscompare,’’ Issue 4, of Section 3— 

Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 

7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, 

Revision 18, dated November 15, 2013. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 

2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; 

telephone 201–440–6700; Internet http:// 

www.dassaultfalcon.com. 

(4) 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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

13, 2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06615 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0229; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–186–AD; Amendment 

39–18123; AD 2015–06–05] 

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 and A310 series 

airplanes, and certain Model A300 B4– 

600, B4–600R, and F4–600R series 

airplanes, and Model A300 C4–605R 

Variant F airplanes (collectively called 

Model A300–600 series airplanes). This 

AD was prompted by a review of certain 

repairs, which revealed that the 

structural integrity of the airplane could 

be negatively affected if those repairs 

are not re-worked. This AD requires an 

inspection to identify certain repairs, 

and corrective action if necessary. We 

are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

certain repairs on the floor cross beams 

flange. If those repairs are not reworked, 

the structural integrity of the airplane 

could be negatively affected. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 

1, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of May 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0229; or in 

person at the Docket Management 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus 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. It is also 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0229. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, ANM–116, 

International Branch, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98507–3356; 

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 and 

A310 series airplanes, and certain 

Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4– 

600R series airplanes, and Model A300 

C4–605R Variant F airplanes 

(collectively called Model A300–600 

series airplanes). The NPRM published 

in the Federal Register on April 16, 

2014 (79 FR 21413). 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2013–0220, dated September 

18, 2013 (referred to after this as the 

Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness 

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

an unsafe condition for all Airbus 

Model A300 and A310 series airplanes, 

and certain Model A300 B4–600, B4– 

600R, and F4–600R series airplanes, and 

Model A300 C4–605R Variant F 

airplanes (collectively called Model 

A300–600 series airplanes). The MCAI 

states: 

In the frame of the Extended Service Goal 

(ESG) activity, all existing Structural Repair 

Manual (SRM) repairs were reviewed. 

This analysis, which consisted in new 

static and fatigue calculations, revealed that 

some repairs were no longer applicable to 

some specific areas. 

These repairs, if not reworked, could affect 

the structural integrity of the aeroplane. To 

address the repairs on the floor cross beams 

flange, Airbus issued Alert Operator 

Transmission (AOT) A300–53A0392, AOT 

A300–53A6171 and AOT A310–53A2135. 

To address this unsafe condition, and 

further to the implementation of the Aging 

Aircraft Safety Rule (AASR), this [EASA] 

Airworthiness Directive requires a [general 

visual] inspection of the floor cross beams 

flange at frame (FR)11 and FR12A to identify 

SRM repairs and, depending on findings, 

accomplishment of corrective action 

[reworking the SRM repairs]. 

You may examine the MCAI in the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0229- 

0002. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (79 FR 21413, 

April 16, 2014) and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Request To Change the Compliance 

Time Expression From Months to Flight 

Cycles 

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested 

that the compliance time proposed in 

the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014) 

for doing the general visual inspection 

be changed from a compliance time 

based on months to a compliance time 

based on the accumulation of flight 

cycles since certain structural repair 

manual (SRM) repairs were 

incorporated on an airplane. UPS stated 

that all documentation related to the 

NPRM indicated that the reported 

damage is fatigue-related; therefore the 

inspection compliance time should 

reflect a typical fatigue-related issue, 

which is expressed in flight cycles. UPS 

explained that it did not provide a 

proposed compliance time because it 

did not have data and suggested that the 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

could establish compliance times for the 

instructions for continued airworthiness 

based on the data used in the SRM 

repair evaluation to determine extended 

service goals. 

We do not agree to change the 

compliance time expression from 

months to accumulated flight cycles 

since certain SRM repairs were done. 

The OEM does not have documentation 

for all the SRM repairs accomplished on 

each airplane, thus it is unable to 

establish compliance times because of 

the incomplete data. The FAA and 

EASA have determined that a 30-month 

compliance time is sufficient to 

accomplish the inspection and all 

applicable corrective actions. No change 

has been made to this AD regarding this 

issue. However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (i) of this AD, we may 

approve requests for adjustments to the 

compliance time if data are submitted to 

substantiate that such an adjustment 

would provide an acceptable level of 

safety. 

Request To Omit References to the AD 

in Repair Approvals 

UPS requested that paragraphs (h) and 

(i)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 

16, 2014) be revised to omit the 

statement ‘‘[F]or a repair method to be 

approved, the repair approval must 

specifically refer to this AD.’’ UPS 

stated that the FAA included this 

sentence in the NPRM because there is 

a ‘‘potential’’ for operators to do repairs 

that do not adequately address the 

unsafe condition. UPS commented that 

adding a reference to the applicable AD 

on repair documentation does not 

address the root cause of repair 

documentation availability. Previously 

approved repairs for an AD should have 

been vetted as part of the corrective 

action and AD development process. 

However, if a repair is not identified 

during that process, the operator is still 

responsible for adhering to the 

Airworthy Product provision in an AD. 

The Airworthy Product provision, in 

conjunction with FAA Advisory 

Circular 120–77, ‘‘Maintenance and 

Alteration Data,’’ dated October 7, 2002 

(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

199e798c7ee4347786256c4d004ae5dc/

$FILE/AC%20120-77.pdf), provides 

sufficient guidance and clarification for 

repairs accomplished during 

compliance with the requirements of an 

AD. 

We concur with the commenter’s 

request to remove from this AD the 

requirement that repair approvals 

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 NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 

2014), we proposed to prevent the use 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 16257 

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. 

Comments were provided to another 

NPRM (Directorate Identifier 2012–NM– 

101–AD (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014)) 

about these proposed changes. UPS 

commented on that NPRM as follows: 

‘‘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.’’ 

That 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 approval of 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 AD to obtain 

corrective actions from a manufacturer, 

the actions must be accomplished using 

a method approved by the FAA, or the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). 

The Contacting the Manufacturer 

paragraph also clarifies that, if approved 

by the DOA, the approval must include 

the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA 

signature indicates that the data and 

information contained in the document 

are EASA approved, which is also FAA 

approved. 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 alternative method of 

compliance. 

Other commenters pointed out that in 

many cases the foreign manufacturer’s 

service bulletin and the foreign 

authority’s MCAI may have been issued 

some time before the FAA AD. 

Therefore, the DOA may have provided 

U.S. operators with an approved repair, 

developed with full awareness of the 

unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is 

issued. Under these circumstances, to 

comply with the FAA AD, the operator 

would be required to go back to the 

manufacturer’s DOA and obtain a new 

approval document, adding time and 

expense to the compliance process with 

no safety benefit. 

Based on these comments, we 

removed the requirement from this AD 

that the DAH-provided repair 

specifically refer to this AD. Before 

adopting such a requirement in the 

future, 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 an AD. 

Any such requirements will be adopted 

through the normal AD rulemaking 

process, including notice-and-comment 

procedures, when appropriate. 

We have also decided not to include 

a generic reference to either the 

‘‘delegated agent’’ or the ‘‘DAH with 

State of Design Authority design 

organization approval,’’ but instead we 

will provide the specific delegation 

approval granted by the State of Design 

Authority for the DAH. 

Additional Changes to This AD 

In this AD, we have corrected a 

formatting error in the subparagraphs of 

paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM (79 FR 

21413, April 16, 2014). The 

subparagraphs were incorrectly 

identified as (g)(1)(a), (g)(1)(b), and 

(g)(1)(c), and should have been 

identified as paragraphs (g)(1)(i), 

(g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, 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 

21413, April 16, 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 21413, 

April 16, 2014). 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Airbus has issued the following 

service information, which describes 

procedures for doing general visual 

inspections of the floor cross beams 

flange at certain frames and contacting 

the manufacturer for corrective actions: 

• Airbus All Operator Telex A300– 

53A0392, dated March 14, 2012 (for 

Model A300 series airplanes); 

• Airbus All Operator Telex A300– 

53A617, dated March 14, 2012 (for 

Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, 

and B4–622 airplanes; Model A300 B4– 

605R and B4–622R airplanes; Model 

A300 F4–605R and F4–622R airplanes; 

and Model A300 C4–605R Variant F 

airplanes); and 

• Airbus All Operator Telex A310– 

53A2135, dated March 14, 2012 (for 

Model A310 series airplanes). 

This service information is reasonably 

available; see ADDRESSES for ways to 

access this service information. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 177 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 1 work-hour per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this AD. The average labor rate is $85 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

per work-hour. Based on these figures, 

we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. 

operators to be $15,045, or $85 per 

product. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this AD will not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0229; 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): 

2015–06–05 Airbus: Amendment 39–18123. 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0229; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–186–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective May 1, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and 

(c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category. 

(1) Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, 

B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 

airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers. 

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

and B4–622 airplanes; Model A300 B4–605R 

and B4–622R airplanes; Model A300 F4– 

605R and F4–622R airplanes; and Model 

A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes; all 

manufacturer serial numbers, except those on 

which Airbus Modification 12699 has been 

embodied in production. 

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

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

manufacturer serial numbers. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a review of 

certain repairs, which revealed that the 

structural integrity of the airplane could be 

negatively affected if those repairs are not reworked. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct certain repairs on the floor cross 

beams flange. If those repairs are not 

reworked, the structural integrity of the 

airplane could be negatively affected. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection 

(1) Within 30 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Do a general visual 

inspection of the floor cross beams flange at 

FR11 and FR12A to determine which 

structural repair manual (SRM) repairs have 

been done, in accordance with the 

instructions of the service information 

specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or 

(g)(1)(iii) of this AD, as applicable. 

(i) For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus 

All Operator Telex (AOT) A300–53A0392, 

dated March 14, 2012. 

(ii) For Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4– 

620, and B4–622 airplanes; Model A300 B4– 

605R and B4–622R airplanes; Model A300 

F4–605R and F4–622R airplanes; and Model 

A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus 

AOT A300–53A6171, dated March 14, 2012. 

(iii) For Model A310 series airplanes: 

Airbus AOT A310–53A2135, dated March 14, 

2012. 

(2) A review of airplane maintenance 

records is acceptable in lieu of the general 

visual inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) 

of this AD if the SRM repairs can be 

positively identified from that review. 

(h) Repair 

If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, it is determined 

that any SRM repair specified in paragraph 

2 of the service information identified in 

paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of 

this AD, as applicable, has been done: Within 

30 months after the effective date of this AD, 

rework the 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). 

(i) 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 98507–3356; 

telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–427–1149. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 16259 

1 42 U.S.C. 6294. EPCA also requires the 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to set minimum 

efficiency standards and develop test procedures to 

measure energy use. 

2The Commission also discussed the potential for 

new ranges in a notice published last summer (79 

FR 34642, 34656 n.108 (June 18, 2014)). 

3These amendments also make a minor, 

conforming change to the range categories in 

§ 305.17 to reflect the scope of the DOE test 

procedure, which does not cover models with 

screen sizes smaller than 16 inches. See 79 FR at 

19465 (Commission’s discussion of this DOE 

change). 

4 5 U.S.C. 605. 

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 EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(j) Related Information 

Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0220, dated 

September 18, 2013, for related information. 

This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;

D=FAA-2014-0229-0002. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Airbus All Operator Telex A300– 

53A0392, dated March 14, 2012. The 

document number and date appear on only 

the first page of this document. 

(ii) Airbus All Operator Telex A300– 

53A6171, dated March 14, 2012. The 

document number and date appear on only 

the first page of this document. 

(iii) Airbus All Operator Telex A310– 

53A2135, dated March 14, 2012. The 

document number and date appear on only 

the first page of this document. 

(3) 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. 

(4) 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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.

gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

14, 2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06583 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

RIN 3084–AB03 

EnergyGuide Labels on Televisions 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) amends 

its Energy Labeling Rule (‘‘Rule’’) by 

publishing new ranges of comparability 

for required EnergyGuide labels on 

televisions. 

DATES: Effective July 15, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division 

of Enforcement, Federal Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC 20580 

(202–326–2889). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission issued the Energy 

Labeling Rule in 1979, 44 FR 66466 

(Nov. 19, 1979) pursuant to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 

(‘‘EPCA’’).1 The Rule covers several 

categories of major household products, 

including televisions. It requires 

manufacturers of covered products to 

disclose specific energy consumption or 

efficiency information (derived from 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) test 

procedures) at the point-of-sale. In 

addition, each label must include a 

‘‘range of comparability’’ indicating the 

highest and lowest energy consumption 

or efficiencies for comparable models. 

The Commission updates these ranges 

periodically. 

II. Range Updates for Televisions 

The Commission amends its 

television ranges in section 305.17(f)(5) 

based on manufacturer data derived 

from the DOE test procedures and 

posted on the DOE Web site (https://

www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms). Last 

year, the Commission issued changes to 

the television labeling requirements, 

including new reporting and testing 

provisions, to conform the FTC Rule to 

a new DOE test procedure (79 FR 19464 

(April 9, 2014)). In that Notice, the 

Commission also discussed the 

possibility that it would revise the 

Rule’s comparability ranges following 

the submission by manufacturers of new 

model data derived from the DOE test 

procedure.2 The Commission now 

updates those ranges, along with related 

sample labels. In addition, these 

amendments update the cost figure on 

the television label to 12 cents per kWh 

consistent with other labeled products.3

Manufacturers have until July 15, 2015 

to begin using the ranges on their labels. 

III. Administrative Procedure Act 

The amendments published in this 

Notice are purely ministerial in nature 

and implement the Rule’s requirement 

that representations for televisions be 

derived from DOE test procedures. See 

16 CFR 305.5(d). Accordingly, the 

Commission has good cause under 

section 553(b)(B) of the APA to forgo 

notice-and comment procedures for 

these rule amendments. 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). These technical amendments 

merely provide a routine, conforming 

change to the range and cost 

information required on EnergyGuide 

labels. The Commission therefore finds 

for good cause that public comment for 

these technical, procedural amendments 

is impractical and unnecessary. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603– 

604) are not applicable to this 

proceeding because the amendments do 

not impose any new obligations on 

entities regulated by the Energy 

Labeling Rule. These technical 

amendments merely provide a routine 

change to the range information 

required on EnergyGuide labels. Thus, 

the amendments will not have a 

‘‘significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 4

The Commission has concluded, 

therefore, that a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not necessary, and certifies, 

under Section 605 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the 

amendments announced today will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The current Rule contains 

recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and 

reporting requirements that constitute 

information collection requirements as 

defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the 

definitional provision within the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations that implement the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB 

has approved the Rule’s existing 

information collection requirements 

through May 31, 2017 (OMB Control No. 

3084 0069). The amendments now being 

adopted do not change the substance or 

frequency of the recordkeeping, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES