Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 31057 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Barry F. Mardock, Deputy 

Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, 

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm 

Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102– 

5090. 

You may review copies of comments 

we receive at our office in McLean, 

Virginia, or from our Web site at 

http://www.fca.gov. Once you are in the 

Web site, select ‘‘Public Commenters,’’ 

then ‘‘Public Comments’’ and follow the 

directions for ‘‘Reading Submitted 

Public Comments.’’ We will show your 

comments as submitted but, for 

technical reasons, we may omit items 

such as logos and special characters. 

Identifying information that you 

provide, such as phone numbers and 

addresses, will be publicly available. 

However, we will attempt to remove 

email addresses to help reduce Internet 

spam. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline R. Melvin, Policy Analyst, 

Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102– 

5090, (703) 883–4498, TDD (703) 883– 

4056, or Mary Alice Donner, Senior 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 

Farm Credit Administration, McLean, 

VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TDD 

(703) 883–4056. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 20, 2014, the FCA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

seeking public comment on proposed 

changes to clarify and strengthen the 

standards of conduct regulations in part 

612, subpart A. See 79 FR 9649. The 

FCA received numerous letters in 

response to the proposed rule requesting 

we extend the comment period. In a 

letter dated May 8, 2014, the Farm 

Credit Council (Council), on behalf of 

System institution banks, associations, 

and service organizations, requested 

that we extend the comment period for 

another 60 days to allow more time for 

boards of directors to study the rule and 

discuss their responses. Several System 

associations submitted separate letters 

supporting the Council’s request for the 

extension of the comment period. Given 

that we have already given interested 

parties 90 days to comment on our 

proposed rule, we believe an additional 

30 days is sufficient for submitting 

comments to FCA. As a result, we are 

reopening the comment period and 

granting an additional 30 days until 

June 20, 2014, to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment. 

Dated: May 22, 2014. 

Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12505 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0291; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–137–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004–03– 

19, which applies to certain Airbus 

Model A320–111, –211, and –231 series 

airplanes. AD 2004–03–19 requires 

repetitive inspections for cracking in the 

transition and pick-up angles in the 

lower part of the center fuselage area, 

and corrective action if necessary. AD 

2004–03–19 also provides for an 

optional terminating modification for 

the repetitive inspection requirements. 

Since we issued AD 2004–03–19, we 

have determined that the modification 

must be accomplished in order to 

address the unsafe condition. This 

proposed AD would also require that 

modification by installing washers 

between the transition pick-up angle 

and the pin nuts, and doing related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

also add airplanes to the applicability. 

We are proposing this AD to prevent 

fatigue cracking in the transition and 

pick-up angles of the lower part of the 

center fuselage, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the wingfuselage support and fuselage pressure 

vessel. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 14, 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, 

Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 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– 

0291; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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–2014–0291; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NM–137–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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31058 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On January 30, 2004, we issued AD 

2004–03–19, Amendment 39–13463 (69 

FR 5922, February 9, 2004). AD 2004– 

03–19 requires actions intended to 

address an unsafe condition on certain 

Airbus Model A320–111, –211, and 

–231 series airplanes. (AD 2004–03–19 

superseded AD 98–12–18, Amendment 

39–10573 (63 FR 31345, June 9, 1998)). 

Since we issued AD 2004–03–19, 

Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 5922, 

February 9, 2004), we have determined 

that the optional modification specified 

in AD 2004–03–19 must be 

accomplished in order to address the 

identified unsafe condition. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0137, 

dated July 9, 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 the A320 fatigue test campaign, it 

has been determined that fatigue damage 

could appear on the transition and pick-up 

angle between Frame (FR) 35 and FR36. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could affect the structural integrity 

of the aeroplane. 

To address this potential unsafe condition, 

DGAC [Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile] France issued AD 2002–183 [related 

to FAA AD 2004–03–19, Amendment 39– 

13463 (69 FR 5922, February 9, 2004)], to 

require repetitive inspections of the center 

fuselage pick-up angle between FR35 and 

FR36, below stringer 30, left hand (LH) and 

right hand (RH) sides, and, depending on 

findings, accomplishment of applicable 

corrective action(s). 

Since that [DGAC] AD [2002–183] was 

issued, a modification was developed, which 

has been published through Airbus Service 

Bulletin (SB) A320–53–1027 for in-service 

application, introducing additional washers 

below the riveting, which constitutes 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC 

France AD 2002–183, which is superseded, 

and requires modification of the transition 

and pick-up angle between FR35 and FR36. 

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– 

0291. 

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. 

Change to Applicability 

We have added Airbus Model A320– 

212 airplanes to the applicability, 

(paragraph (c) of this NPRM) because 

these airplanes are subject to the same 

unsafe condition identified on Airbus 

Model A320–111, A320–211, and A320– 

231 airplanes. We have also revised the 

applicability language used in AD 2004– 

03–19, Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 

5922, February 9, 2004). This proposed 

AD applies to Airbus Model A320–111, 

–211, –212, and –231 airplanes, all 

manufacturer serial numbers. We have 

added new paragraph (n) in this 

proposed AD to specify that 

accomplishing Airbus Modification 

21202 in production terminates the 

requirements of this AD. 

Clarification of Modification Actions 

The optional modification specified 

in paragraph (e) of AD 2004–03–19, 

Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 5922, 

February 9, 2004), is proposed to be 

required in paragraph (m) of this NPRM. 

The modification includes rotating 

probe inspections for cracking of certain 

fastener holes and, if any cracking is 

found, replacement or repair of certain 

parts. We have included these 

inspections, as well as the replacement 

of transition angles if cracking is found 

in the transition angles and repair if 

cracking is found in the pick-up angles, 

in the description of the modification in 

paragraph (m) of this NPRM. 

Repair Approvals 

In many FAA transport ADs, when 

the service information specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for further 

instructions if certain discrepancies are 

found, we typically include in the AD 

a requirement to accomplish the action 

using a method approved by either the 

FAA or the State of Design Authority (or 

its delegated agent). 

We have recently been notified that 

certain laws in other countries do not 

allow such delegation of authority, but 

some countries do recognize design 

approval organizations. In addition, we 

have become aware that some U.S. 

operators have used repair instructions 

that were previously approved by a 

State of Design Authority or a Design 

Approval Holder (DAH) as a method of 

compliance with this provision in FAA 

ADs. Frequently, in these cases, the 

previously approved repair instructions 

come from the airplane structural repair 

manual or the DAH repair approval 

statements that were not specifically 

developed to address the unsafe 

condition corrected by the AD. Using 

repair instructions that were not 

specifically approved for a particular 

AD creates the potential for doing 

repairs that were not developed to 

address the unsafe condition identified 

by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the 

applicable service information, which 

could result in the unsafe condition not 

being fully corrected. 

To prevent the use of repairs that 

were not specifically developed to 

correct the unsafe condition, certain 

requirements of this proposed AD 

would require that the repair approval 

specifically refer to the FAA AD. This 

change is 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 use the phrase ‘‘its 

delegated agent, or the DAH with State 

of Design Authority design organization 

approval, as applicable’’ in this 

proposed AD to refer to a DAH 

authorized to approve certain required 

repairs for this proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 482 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 

estimate the following costs to comply 

with this proposed AD: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 31059 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product Cost on U.S. operators 

Inspection [retained action from AD 

2004–03–19, Amendment 39–13463 

(69 FR 5922, February 9, 2004)].

9 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $765 per inspection cycle.

$0 $765 per inspection cycle $18,360 per inspection 

cycle (24 airplanes). 

Inspection for Model A320–212 airplanes [new proposed action].9 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $765 per inspection cycle.

0 $765 per inspection cycle $32,130 per inspection 

cycle (42 airplanes). 

Terminating modification [new proposed 

action].

28 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $2,380.

1,837 $4,217 ............................... $2,032,594. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 39.13 by removing 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2004–03– 

19, Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 5922, 

February 9, 2004), and adding the 

following new AD: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2014–0291; 

Directorate Identifier 2013–NM–137–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by July 14, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2004–03–19, 

Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 5922, February 

9, 2004). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Model A320– 

111, –211, –212, and –231 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 the 

determination that the modification must be 

accomplished in order to address the unsafe 

condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

fatigue cracking in the transition and pick-up 

angles of the lower part of the center 

fuselage, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the wing-fuselage 

support and fuselage pressure vessel. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Detailed and Rotating Probe 

Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of AD 2004–03–19, 

Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 5922, February 

9, 2004). For Model A320–111, –211, and 

–231 airplanes on which the modification 

specified in AD 98–12–18, Amendment 39– 

10573 (63 FR 31345, June 9, 1998), has not 

been done: Do the applicable inspections 

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

this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1028, Revision 01, 

dated February 12, 2002. 

(1) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by AD 98–12–18, Amendment 39– 

10573 (63 FR 31345, June 9, 1998), have been 

done: Within 12,000 flight cycles after 

accomplishment of the last inspection 

required by AD 98–12–18, do a detailed 

inspection of the transition angle and a 

rotating probe inspection of the pick-up angle 

in the lower part of the center fuselage area 

for cracking. 

(2) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by AD 98–12–18, Amendment 39– 

10573 (63 FR 31345, June 9, 1998), have not 

been done: At the later of the times specified 

in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, 

do a detailed inspection of the transition 

angle and a rotating probe inspection of the 

pick-up angle in the lower part of the center 

fuselage area for cracking. 

(i) Before the accumulation of 10,400 total 

flight cycles, or 24,600 total flight hours, 

whichever is first. 

(ii) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 3,500 flight cycles 

after March 15, 2004 (the effective date of AD 

2004–03–19, Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 

5922, February 9, 2004), whichever is first. 

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of AD 2004–03–19, 

Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 5922, February 

9, 2004). For Model A320–111, –211, and 

–231 airplanes: Repeat the detailed and 

rotating probe inspections specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at 

intervals not to exceed 10,400 flight cycles or 

24,600 flight hours, whichever is first, until 

the modification specified in paragraph (m) 

of this AD has been done. 

(i) Retained Corrective Action for 

Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of AD 2004–03–19, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31060 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 5922, February 

9, 2004). For Model A320–111, –211, and 

–231 airplanes: If any cracking is found 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(g) or (h) of this AD, prior to further flight, 

either repair the cracking per the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1028, Revision 01, 

dated February 12, 2002; or do the 

modification specified in paragraph (m) of 

this AD. Where Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–53–1028, Revision 01, dated February 

12, 2002, specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for repair instructions, prior to 

further flight, repair the cracking in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) or 

the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile 

(or its delegated agent). If the cracking is 

repaired, repeat the inspections as required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(j) New Detailed and Rotating Probe 

Inspections for Model A320–212 Airplanes 

For Model A320–212 airplanes on which 

the modification specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–53–1027, has not been done as 

of the effective date of this AD: Do the 

applicable inspections specified in paragraph 

(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1028, Revision 01, 

dated February 12, 2002. 

(1) For airplanes on which the inspections 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1028 have been done as of the effective 

date of this AD: At the later of the times 

specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of 

this AD, do a detailed inspection of the 

transition angle and a rotating probe 

inspection of the pick-up angle in the lower 

part of the center fuselage area for cracking. 

(i) Within 10,400 flight cycles or 24,600 

flight hours, whichever occurs first after 

accomplishing the most recent inspection 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1028. 

(ii) Within 90 days after the effective date 

of this AD. 

(2) For airplanes on which the inspections 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1028 have not been done as of the 

effective date of this AD: At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and 

(j)(2)(ii) of this AD, do a detailed inspection 

of the transition angle and a rotating probe 

inspection of the pick-up angle in the lower 

part of the center fuselage area for cracking. 

(i) Before the accumulation of 10,400 total 

flight cycles, or 24,600 total flight hours, 

whichever occurs first. 

(ii) Within 90 days after the effective date 

of this AD. 

(k) New Repetitive Inspections for Model 

A320–212 Airplanes 

For Model A320–212 airplanes: Repeat the 

detailed and rotating probe inspections 

specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this 

AD at intervals not to exceed 10,400 flight 

cycles or 24,600 flight hours, whichever 

occurs first, until the modification specified 

in paragraph (m) of this AD has been done. 

(l) New Corrective Action for Model A320– 

212 Airplanes 

For Model A320–212 airplanes: If any 

cracking is found during any inspection 

required by paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD, 

before further flight, do the actions specified 

in either paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Repair the crack in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1028, Revision 01, 

dated February 12, 2002, except where 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1028, 

Revision 01, dated February 12, 2002, 

specifies to contact the manufacturer, before 

further flight, repair using a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA; or European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA), or its delegated agent, 

or the design approval holder (DAH) with 

EASA’s design organization approval, as 

applicable. For a repair method to be 

approved, the repair approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. After the 

cracking is repaired, repeat the inspections 

required by paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(2) Do the modification specified in 

paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(m) New Terminating Modification for All 

Airplanes 

For all airplanes: Before the accumulation 

of 40,000 flight cycles since first flight, or 

within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, but 

not exceeding 48,000 flight cycles since first 

flight, modify by doing rotating probe 

inspections for cracking of certain fastener 

holes, replacing transition angles if any 

cracking is found in the transition angles, 

repairing if any pick-up angles cracking is 

found, and installing washers between the 

transition pick-up angle and the pin nuts; in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

53–1027, Revision 03, dated February 12, 

2002, except where Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–53–1027, Revision 03, dated February 

12, 2001, specifies to contact Airbus, before 

further flight, repair using a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA; or EASA, or its delegated 

agent; or the DAH with EASA’s design 

organization approval, as applicable. For a 

repair method to be approved, the repair 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Accomplishment of this modification 

terminates the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD. 

(n) Terminating Modification 

For airplanes on which Airbus 

Modification 21202 has been embodied in 

production: No actions are required by this 

AD. 

(o) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–53–1028, dated March 1, 

1994. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the 

action specified in paragraph (m) of this AD, 

if that action was performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–53–1027, dated March 1, 

1994; Revision 1, dated September 5, 1994; 

or Revision 2, dated June 8, 1995. 

(p) 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: 

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. AMOCs 

approved previously in accordance with AD 

2004–03–19, Amendment 39–13463 (69 FR 

5922, February 9, 2004), are approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of 

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 DAH 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. 

(q) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0137, dated 

July 9, 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– 

2014–0291. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness 

Office—EIAS, 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 31061 

1The term ‘‘generator tie line’’ has often been 

used in the past to refer to the facilities defined as 

ICIF. The Commission uses the term ICIF in this 

Proposed Rule. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15, 

2014. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12613 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No. RM14–11–000] 

Open Access and Priority Rights on 

Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission proposes to 

amend its regulations to waive the Open 

Access Transmission Tariff 

requirements, the Open Access SameTime Information System requirements 

its regulations, and the Standards of 

Conduct requirements its regulations for 

any public utility that is subject to such 

requirements solely because it owns, 

controls, or operates Interconnection 

Customer’s Interconnection Facilities, in 

whole or in part, and sells electric 

energy from its Generating Facility, as 

those terms are defined in the pro forma 

Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures and the pro forma Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement 

and adopted in Order No. 2003. The 

Commission proposes to find that 

requiring the filing of an Open Access 

Transmission Tariff is not necessary to 

prevent unjust or unreasonable rates or 

unduly discriminatory behavior with 

respect to Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities over which 

interconnection and transmission 

services can be ordered pursuant to the 

Federal Power Act. 

DATES: Comments are due July 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and in 

accordance with the requirements 

posted on the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web site: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format, and not in a scanned format, at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

efiling.asp. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

copy of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

These requirements can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or 

via phone from FERC Online Support at 

(202) 502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866– 

208–3676. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Robinson (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Policy 

and Innovation, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8868, Becky.Robinson@

ferc.gov. 

Brian Gish (Legal Information), Office of 

the General Counsel—Energy Markets, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8998, Brian.Gish@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

Paragraph 

Nos. 

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

II. Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

A. Development of ICIF Policies ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 

B. Notice of Inquiry ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 

C. Comments on the Notice of Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................ 18 

III. The Need for Reform .......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 

IV. Proposed Reform ................................................................................................................................................................................ 33 

A. Proposed New Processes for ICIF Access ................................................................................................................................... 33 

1. Grant Blanket Waivers to Eligible ICIF Owners ................................................................................................................... 34 

2. Provide Open Access and Establish Priority Rights to ICIF Through Sections 210 and 211 ........................................... 41 

a. Procedures Under Sections 210 and 211 ....................................................................................................................... 42 

b. Application of Sections 210 and 211 to Requests for Service on ICIF ....................................................................... 47 

3. Safe Harbor for Early Years After ICIF Energization ........................................................................................................... 54 

B. Affiliate Concerns ......................................................................................................................................................................... 59 

V. Information Collection Statement ....................................................................................................................................................... 60 

VI. Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 65 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 66 

VIII. Comment Procedures ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69 

IX. Document Availability ....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 

Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Notice of Inquiry on Open 

Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Facilities—Docket No. AD12–14–000, April 2012. 

147 FERC ¶ 61,123. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

May 15, 2014. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (Proposed Rule), the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC or Commission) proposes to 

amend its regulations to waive the Open 

Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) 

requirements of 18 CFR 35.28 (2013), 

the Open Access Same-Time 

Information System (OASIS) 

requirements of Part 37 of its 

regulations, 18 CFR 37 (2013), and the 

Standards of Conduct requirements of 

Part 358 of its regulations, 18 CFR 358 

(2013), for any public utility that is 

subject to such requirements solely 

because it owns, controls, or operates 

Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities (ICIF),1 in 

whole or in part, and sells electric 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS