18744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Question 1. Does the existing 

regulatory framework properly consider 

all aspects of the Bank Merger Act as 

currently codified in Section 18(c) of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act? 

Question 2. What, if any, additional 

requirements or criteria should be 

included in the existing regulatory 

framework to address the financial 

stability risk factor included by the 

Dodd-Frank Act? Are there specific 

quantitative or qualitative measures that 

should be used to address financial 

stability risk that may arise from bank 

mergers? If so, are there specific 

quantitative measures that would also 

ensure greater clarity and 

administrability? Should the FDIC 

presume that any merger transaction 

that results in a financial institution that 

exceeds a predetermined asset size 

threshold, for example $100 billion in 

total consolidated assets, poses a 

systemic risk concern? 

Question 3. To what extent should 

prudential factors (for example, capital 

levels, management quality, earnings, 

etc.) be considered in acting on a merger 

application? Should bright line 

minimum standards for prudential 

factors be established? If so, what 

minimum standard(s) should be 

established and for which prudential 

factor(s)? 

Question 4. To what extent should the 

convenience and needs factor be 

considered in acting on a merger 

application? Is the convenience and 

needs factor appropriately defined in 

the existing framework? Is the reliance 

on an insured depository institution’s 

successful Community Reinvestment 

Act performance evaluation record 

sufficient? Are the convenience and 

needs of all stakeholders appropriately 

addressed in the existing regulatory 

framework? To what extent and how 

should the convenience and needs 

factor take into consideration the impact 

that branch closings and consolidations 

may have on affected communities? To 

what extent should the FDIC 

differentiate its consideration of the 

convenience and needs factor when 

considering merger transactions 

involving a large insured depository 

institution and merger transactions 

involving a small insured depository 

institution? To what extent should the 

CFPB be consulted by the FDIC when 

considering the convenience and needs 

factor and should that consultation be 

formalized? 

Question 5. In addition to the HHI, are 

there other quantitative measures that 

the federal banking agencies should 

consider when reviewing a merger 

application? If so, please describe the 

measures and how such measures 

should be considered in conjunction 

with the HHI. To what extent should 

such quantitative measures be 

differentiated when considering mergers 

involving a large insured depository 

institution and mergers involving only 

small insured depository institutions? 

Question 6. How and to what extent 

should the following factors be 

considered in determining whether a 

particular merger transaction creates a 

monopoly or is otherwise 

anticompetitive? 

Please address the following factors: 

(a) The merging parties do not 

significantly compete with one another; 

(b) Rapid economic change has 

resulted in an outdated geographic 

market definition and an alternate 

market is more appropriate; 

(c) Market shares are not an adequate 

indicator of the extent of competition in 

the market; 

(d) A thrift institution is actively 

engaged in providing services to 

commercial customers, particularly 

loans for business startup or working 

capital purposes and cash management 

services; 

(e) A credit union has such 

membership restrictions, or lack of 

restrictions, and offers such services to 

commercial customers that it should be 

considered to be in the market; 

(f) There is actual competition by outof-market institutions for commercial 

customers, particularly competition for 

loans for business startup or working 

capital purposes; and 

(g) There is actual competition by 

non-bank institutions for commercial 

customers, particularly competition for 

loans for business startup or working 

capital purposes. With respect to the 

preceding factors, how and to what 

extent should the activity of current 

branches or pending branch 

applications be considered? 

Question 7. Does the existing 

regulatory framework create an implicit 

presumption of approval? If so, what 

actions should the FDIC take to address 

this implicit presumption? 

Question 8. Does the existing 

regulatory framework require an 

appropriate burden of proof from the 

merger applicant that the criteria of the 

Bank Merger Act have been met? If not, 

what modifications to the framework 

would be appropriate with respect to 

the burden of proof? 

Question 9. The Bank Merger Act 

provides an exception to its 

requirements if the responsible agency 

finds that it must act immediately in 

order to prevent the probable failure of 

one of the insured depository 

institutions involved in the merger 

transaction. To what extent has this 

exception proven beneficial or 

detrimental to the bank resolution 

process and to financial stability? 

Should any requirements or controls be 

put into place regarding the use of this 

exemption, for example when 

considering purchase and assumption 

transactions in a large bank resolution? 

Are there attributes of GSIB 

resolvability, such as a Total LossAbsorbing Capacity (TLAC) 

requirement, that could be put into 

place that would facilitate the resolution 

of a large insured depository institution 

without resorting to a merger with 

another large institution or a purchase 

and assumption transaction with 

another large institutions? 

Question 10. To what extent would 

responses to Questions 1–9 differ for the 

consideration of merger transactions 

involving a small insured depository 

institution? Should the regulations and 

policies of the FDIC be updated to 

differentiate between merger 

transactions involving a large insured 

depository institution and those 

involving a small insured depository 

institution? If yes, please explain. How 

should the FDIC define large insured 

depository institutions for these 

purposes? 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

By order of the Board of Directors. 

Dated at Washington, DC, on December 6, 

2021. 

Harrel M. Pettway, 

Executive Secretary. 

Editorial note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of the 

Federal Register on March 25, 2022. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06720 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0382; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2021–01452–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus SAS Model A350–941 and –1041 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports that passenger door 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18745 

stop screws were found with missing 

screw heads. This proposed AD would 

require repetitive inspections of each 

passenger door stop screw for any 

missing screw heads and applicable 

corrective actions, as specified in a 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD, which is proposed for 

incorporation by reference. The FAA is 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by May 16, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://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: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For material that will be incorporated 

by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact 

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 

8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; 

internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may 

find this material on the EASA website 

at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may 

view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available in the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0382. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0382; or in person at Docket 

Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

NPRM, the mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI), any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for 

Docket Operations is listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large 

Aircraft Section, International 

Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 

216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; 

telephone and fax 206–231–3225; email 

dan.rodina@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0382; Project Identifier 

MCAI–2021–01452–T’’ at the beginning 

of your comments. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this proposal 

because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. The 

agency will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact received about this NPRM. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Dan Rodina, 

Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft 

Section, International Validation 

Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, 

Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and 

fax 206–231–3225; email dan.rodina@

faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA 

receives which is not specifically 

designated as CBI will be placed in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Background 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD 2021–0291, 

dated December 22, 2021 (EASA AD 

2021–0291) (also referred to as the 

MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition 

for all Airbus SAS Model A350–941 and 

–1041 airplanes. 

This proposed AD was prompted by 

reports that passenger door stop screws 

were found with missing screw heads. 

The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address missing door stop screw heads, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI 

for additional background information. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

EASA AD 2021–0291 specifies 

procedures for repetitive general visual 

inspections (GVI) of each passenger 

door stop screw for any missing screw 

heads, and applicable corrective actions. 

The corrective actions include 

replacement of the passenger door stop 

screw, repair, and follow-up actions 

(GVI of the adjacent door stop area and 

surrounding structure for damage, 

including any broken door stop screws). 

EASA AD 2021–0291 also specifies 

procedures for reporting results of the 

initial inspection to Airbus. This 

material is reasonably available because 

the interested parties have access to it 

through their normal course of business 

or by the means identified in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

FAA’s Determination 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country and is approved for operation in 

the United States. Pursuant to the FAA’s 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, it has notified the 

FAA of the unsafe condition described 

in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA 

is issuing this NPRM after determining 

that the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of the same type 

design. 

Proposed AD Requirements in This 

NPRM 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

EASA AD 2021–0291 described 

previously, except for any differences 

identified as exceptions in the 

regulatory text of this proposed AD. 

Explanation of Required Compliance 

Information 

In the FAA’s ongoing efforts to 

improve the efficiency of the AD 

process, the FAA developed a process to 

use some civil aviation authority (CAA) 

ADs as the primary source of 

information for compliance with 

requirements for corresponding FAA 

ADs. The FAA has been coordinating 

this process with manufacturers and 

CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
18746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

incorporate EASA AD 2021–0291 by 

reference in the FAA final rule. This 

proposed AD would, therefore, require 

compliance with EASA AD 2021–0291 

in its entirety through that 

incorporation, except for any differences 

identified as exceptions in the 

regulatory text of this proposed AD. 

Using common terms that are the same 

as the heading of a particular section in 

EASA AD 2021–0291 does not mean 

that operators need comply only with 

that section. For example, where the AD 

requirement refers to ‘‘all required 

actions and compliance times,’’ 

compliance with this AD requirement is 

not limited to the section titled 

‘‘Required Action(s) and Compliance 

Time(s)’’ in EASA AD 2021–0291. 

Service information required by EASA 

AD 2021–0291 for compliance will be 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0382 after the FAA final 

rule is published. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that this proposed 

AD would affect 27 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. The FAA estimates the 

following costs to comply with this 

proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS * 

Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 .......................................................................................... $0 $680 $18,360 

* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting. 

The FAA estimates that it would take 

about 1 work-hour per product to 

comply with the proposed reporting 

requirement in this proposed AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based 

on these figures, the FAA estimates the 

cost of reporting the inspection results 

on U.S. operators to be $2,295, or $85 

per product. 

The FAA estimates the following 

costs to do any necessary on-condition 

screw replacement that would be 

required based on the results of any 

required actions. The FAA has no way 

of determining the number of aircraft 

that might need this on-condition 

action: 

ESTIMATED COSTS OF ON-CONDITION ACTIONS

Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per screw 

replacement.

$875 per screw ................................................. $960 per screw replacement. 

The FAA has received no definitive 

data on which to base the cost estimates 

for the on-condition repairs or 

applicable follow-up actions specified 

in this proposed AD. 

According to the manufacturer, some 

or all of the costs of this proposed AD 

may be covered under warranty, thereby 

reducing the cost impact on affected 

individuals. The FAA does not control 

warranty coverage for affected 

individuals. As a result, the FAA has 

included all known costs in the cost 

estimate. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to a penalty for failure to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a current valid 

OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of 

information is estimated to take 

approximately 1 hour per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

All responses to this collection of 

information are mandatory. Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to: 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. 

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. 

The FAA is 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 

The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, and 

(3) Would 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18747 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA–2022–0382; 

Project Identifier MCAI–2021–01452–T. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by May 16, 

2022. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model 

A350–941 and –1041 airplanes, certificated 

in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 52, Doors. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports that 

passenger door stop screws were found with 

missing screw heads. The FAA is issuing this 

AD to address the missing door stop screw 

heads, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Requirements 

Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this 

AD: Comply with all required actions and 

compliance times specified in, and in 

accordance with, European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021–0291, dated 

December 22, 2021 (EASA AD 2021–0291). 

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021–0291 

(1) Where EASA AD 2021–0291 refers to its 

effective date, this AD requires using the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD 

2021–0291 does not apply to this AD. 

(3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021–0291 

specifies to report results of the initial 

inspection to Airbus within a certain 

compliance time. For this AD, report 

inspection results of the initial inspection at 

the applicable time specified in paragraph 

(h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this AD. 

(i) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(ii) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(4) Where Note 2 of paragraph (2) of EASA 

AD 2021–0291 specifies using ‘‘the 

instructions from an applicable Airbus 

Repair Design Approval Form (RDAF)’’ is 

acceptable for compliance with the corrective 

actions, this AD requires using corrective 

actions approved using a method approved 

by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, 

International Validation Branch, FAA; or 

EASA; or Airbus SAS’s EASA DOA. If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(5) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021– 

0291 refers to passenger door stop screws 

that are ‘‘damaged, as defined in the SB’’ this 

AD defines damage as broken passenger door 

stop screws. 

(6) Where service information referenced 

in EASA AD 2021–0291 specifies ‘‘a general 

visual inspection of the adjacent door stop 

area and surrounding structure (no lining 

removal required),’’ for this AD do a general 

visual inspection for any damage (e.g., 

broken passenger door stop screws), and 

repair any damage before further flight using 

a method approved by the Manager, Large 

Aircraft Section, International Validation 

Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS’s 

EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). 

If approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(i) Return of Parts 

Although the service information 

referenced in EASA AD 2021–0291 specifies 

to send broken screws to Airbus, this AD 

does not include that requirement. 

(j) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits may be issued in 

accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 

to operate the airplane to a location where 

the actions of this AD can be performed (if 

the operator elects to do so), provided no 

passengers are onboard. 

(k) Additional AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Large Aircraft 

Section, International Validation Branch, 

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 responsible Flight 

Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending 

information directly to the Large Aircraft 

Section, International Validation Branch, 

send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR730-AMOC@faa.gov. Before using any 

approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the responsible 

Flight Standards Office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain instructions 

from a manufacturer, the instructions must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, 

International Validation Branch, FAA; or 

EASA; or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except 

as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, if 

any service information contains procedures 

or tests that are identified as RC, those 

procedures and tests must be done to comply 

with this AD; any procedures or tests that are 

not identified as RC are recommended. Those 

procedures and tests that are not identified 

as RC may be deviated from using accepted 

methods in accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program without 

obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided 

the procedures and tests identified as RC can 

be done and the airplane can be put back in 

an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or 

changes to procedures or tests identified as 

RC require approval of an AMOC. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For EASA AD 2021–0291, contact 

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 

000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; internet 

www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

EASA AD on the EASA website at https://

ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this 

material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products 

Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. This 

material may be found in the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2022–0382. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

Large Aircraft Section, International 

Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th 

Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 

and fax 206–231–3225; email dan.rodina@

faa.gov. 

Issued on March 24, 2022. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06601 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0387; Project 

Identifier AD–2021–01225–R] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron 

Inc., Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1