Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39735 

FDCPA in a way that would render a provision 

‘‘superfluous’’). 

27Accord Alexander, 23 F.4th at 379 (rejecting 

the separate agreement interpretation in part 

because it would render section 808(1)’s other 

prong superfluous). The separate agreement 

interpretation also would conflict with the FDCPA’s 

use of the phrase ‘‘expressly authorized,’’ since 

general principles of State contract law allow 

parties to agree to express or implied terms as part 

of any agreement. See Restatement (Second) of 

Contracts § 4 cmt. a (1981). If general principles of 

contract law counted as a ‘‘law’’ that ‘‘permitted’’ 

the collection of amounts, debt collectors would be 

free to collect not only those amounts authorized 

by separate agreements, but also to collect amounts 

that are only implicitly authorized by the agreement 

creating the debt—further rendering section 808(1)’s 

‘‘express’’ requirement meaningless. 

28See Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1118 

(10th Cir. 2002) (‘‘The statute does not ask whether 

[the debt collector’s] actions were permitted by law 

. . . , it asks whether the amount he sought to 

collect was permitted by law.’’ (emphasis in 

original)). 

29While a contract might, consistent with 

contract law, permit an amount, section 808(1) only 

permits collecting amounts authorized by contract 

when the amount is expressly authorized by the 

contract ‘‘creating the debt.’’ 

30See, e.g., Alexander, 23 F.4th at 376–77 

(holding, in a case regarding pay-to-pay fees, that 

‘‘ ’permitted by law’ requires affirmative sanction or 

approval’’); Seeger v. AFNI, Inc., 548 F.3d 1107, 

1111, 1112 (7th Cir. 2008) (finding that, to be 

entitled to collect a fee, debt collectors ‘‘must show 

that the fee is either authorized by the governing 

contract or that it is permitted by Wisconsin law’’ 

and that, in that case, that neither an agreement nor 

a law expressly permitting a collection fee existed); 

Tuttle v. Equifax Check, 190 F.3d 9, 13 (2d Cir. 

1999) (explaining that if ‘‘state law neither 

affirmatively permits nor expressly prohibits 

service charges, a service charge can be imposed 

only if the customer expressly agrees to it in the 

[underlying] contract’’). 

31See Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 53 FR 50097, 50101 (Dec. 

13, 1988). 32 Id. at 50108. 33 Id. 34See, e.g., Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3d ed. 

2010) (defining ‘‘collect’’ as ‘‘to receive payment’’); 

cf. 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6) (defining debt collector to 

include persons who ‘‘directly or indirectly’’ collect 

debts). 

35 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1); 5481(14); 5481(12)(H). 

36 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

37 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). 

38 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. 

39 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 

agreement creating the debt is, by 

definition, an agreement valid under 

State contract law.27 In addition, the 

separate agreement interpretation 

ignores section 808(1)’s focus on the 

‘‘amount’’ being ‘‘expressly authorized 

by the agreement creating the debt’’ or 

‘‘permitted by law.’’ 28 Under section 

808(1), it is not enough for the 

agreement to be ‘‘permitted by law’’; 

rather, the ‘‘amount’’ itself must be. 

Contract law standing alone does not 

provide for the collection of any specific 

amounts—and no principle of contract 

law says debt collectors may collect 

pay-to-pay fees.29 Thus, while it may 

have been permissible under contract 

law for a debt collector to enter into 

separate agreements with consumers, 

contract law does not permit the 

‘‘amount’’ at issue, i.e., the pay-to-pay 

fees. 

The CFPB’s interpretation of 

‘‘permitted by law’’ in FDCPA section 

808(1) is consistent with the previous 

interpretation in a CFPB compliance 

bulletin as discussed in part I.A., as well 

as with the prior interpretation of FTC 

staff and the holdings of the majority of 

courts to address the issue.30 In 

particular, in 1988, FTC staff issued 

Commentary that set forth ‘‘staff 

interpretations’’ of the FDCPA.31 As 

relevant here, FTC staff stated that, 

under section 808(1), a ‘‘debt collector 

may attempt to collect a fee or charge in 

addition to the debt if . . . the contract 

[creating the debt] is silent but the 

charge is otherwise expressly permitted 

by state law.’’ 32 Conversely, FTC staff 

stated that ‘‘a debt collector may not 

collect an additional amount if . . . the 

contract does not provide for collection 

of the amount and state law is silent.’’ 33

The CFPB’s interpretation is also 

consistent with the FDCPA’s statutory 

purposes. As noted in part I.A, Congress 

passed the FDCPA because it found that 

existing laws and procedures, including 

at the state level, were inadequate to 

protect consumers. Given this concern, 

it would be particularly unnatural to 

understand ‘‘permitted by law’’ to mean 

‘‘permitted because no law prohibits it.’’ 

Accordingly, the CFPB interprets 

FDCPA section 808(1) and Regulation F, 

12 CFR 1006.22(b), to prohibit debt 

collectors from collecting any amount, 

including any pay-to-pay fee, not 

expressly authorized in the agreement 

creating the debt unless there is some 

law that affirmatively authorizes the 

collection of that amount. 

3. Payment Processors 

Debt collectors may violate FDCPA 

section 808(1) and Regulation F, 12 CFR 

1006.22(b), when using payment 

processors who charge consumers payto-pay fees. For instance, a debt 

collector collects an amount under 

section 808(1) at a minimum when a 

third-party payment processor collects a 

pay-to-pay fee from a consumer and 

remits to the debt collector any amount 

in connection with that fee, whether in 

installments or in a lump sum.34

II. Regulatory Matters 

This is an advisory opinion issued 

under the CFPB’s authority to interpret 

the FDCPA, including under section 

1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act, which authorizes 

guidance as may be necessary or 

appropriate to enable the CFPB to 

administer and carry out the purposes 

and objectives of Federal consumer 

financial laws, such as the FDCPA.35

An advisory opinion is a type of 

interpretive rule. As an interpretive 

rule, this advisory opinion is exempt 

from the notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act.36

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act does not require an 

initial or final regulatory flexibility 

analysis.37 The CFPB has also 

determined that this advisory opinion 

does not impose any new or revise any 

existing recordkeeping, reporting, or 

disclosure requirements on covered 

entities or members of the public that 

would be collections of information 

requiring approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act.38

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act,39 the CFPB will submit a report 

containing this advisory opinion and 

other required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to the 

opinion’s published effective date. The 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs has designated this advisory 

opinion as not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Rohit Chopra, 

Director, Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14230 Filed 7–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0382; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2021–01452–T; Amendment 

39–22099; AD 2022–13–13] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus SAS Model A350–941 and –1041 

airplanes. This AD was prompted by 

reports that passenger door stop screws 

were found with missing screw heads. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39736 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

This AD requires 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 incorporated by 

reference. The FAA is issuing this AD 

to address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 9, 

2022. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of August 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: For material 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 on the internet 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 

final rule, the mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI), any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

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: 

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. 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to all Airbus SAS Model A350– 

941 and –1041 airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 31, 2022 (87 FR 18744). The 

NPRM was prompted by reports that 

passenger door stop screws were found 

with missing screw heads. The NPRM 

proposed to require repetitive general 

visual inspections (GVI) of each 

passenger door stop screw for any 

missing screw heads, and applicable 

corrective actions, as specified in EASA 

AD 2021–0291. 

The FAA is issuing 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. 

Discussion of Final Airworthiness 

Directive 

Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

Delta Airlines (DAL). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Request To Remove the Reporting 

Requirement 

DAL requested that the FAA remove 

the reporting requirement in paragraph 

(h) of the proposed AD. DAL stated that 

Note 3 in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 

2021–0291 indicates that ‘‘[u]sing the 

inspection report in accordance with the 

instructions of [the specified service 

information] is acceptable to comply 

with the requirements’’ of paragraph (4). 

The commenter added that the service 

information specified in EASA AD 

2021–0291 states that the relevant Task 

(‘‘Complete the Inspection Report 

Sheet’’) specifies that sending the 

Inspection Report sheet is not an RC 

(required for compliance) step. The 

commenter stated that EASA AD 2021– 

0291, by referencing the service 

information in Note 3, appears to 

approve completing the inspection 

report sheet, but does not require 

sending the inspection report as it is not 

required for compliance. 

The FAA does not agree to the 

requested change. The inspection 

reports that are required by this AD will 

enable the manufacturer to obtain better 

insight into the nature, cause, and 

extent of the missing screw heads, and 

may help the FAA determine whether 

different AD requirements may be 

appropriate. Further, EASA AD 2021– 

0291 requires reporting inspection 

results to Airbus in paragraph (4) and 

note 3 is only an option of how to 

comply with that reporting requirement. 

This AD has not been changed with 

regard to this request. 

Request To Clarify the Timing for 

Reporting 

If the FAA does not remove the 

reporting requirement as DAL 

requested, DAL recommended revised 

compliance times for reporting, which 

DAL asserted would remove restrictive 

time constraints while still meeting the 

intent of the proposed AD. Delta stated 

that commonly the scanned records 

from each airplane visit are not 

available until after the end of the visit 

(when the entire package is sent for 

scanning all at once), which could take 

up to 75 days. Delta added that 

potentially a report due under the 

conditions of paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of the 

proposed AD could involve a case 

where the service information and AD 

inspections were signed off 20 days into 

their 75-day long visit but before the 

AD’s effective date, and could result in 

manual coordination with the 

Production Control Office. 

• For paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the 

proposed AD, DAL recommended 

revising the reporting compliance time 

as ‘‘within 30 days after the end of the 

maintenance visit/check during which 

the inspection was performed’’ instead 

of ‘‘within 30 days after the inspection.’’ 

• For paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of the 

proposed AD, DAL recommended this 

paragraph to state ‘‘within 30 days after 

the end of the maintenance visit/check 

during which the inspection was 

performed or within 30 days after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs last’’ instead of ‘‘within 30 days 

after the effective date of this AD.’’ 

The FAA agrees with the request for 

the reasons provided, and has revised 

paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD 

accordingly. 

Conclusion 

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety requires 

adopting this AD as proposed. Except 

for minor editorial changes, and any 

other changes described previously, this 

AD is adopted as proposed in the 

NPRM. None of the changes will 

increase the economic burden on any 

operator. Accordingly, the FAA is 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

EASA AD 2021–0291 specifies 

procedures for repetitive general visual 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39737 

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 service 

information 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. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that this AD 

affects 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

FAA estimates the following costs to 

comply with this 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 reporting requirement 

in this 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 AD. 

According to the manufacturer, some 

or all of the costs of this 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 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 control 

number for the collection of information 

required by this AD is 2120–0056. The 

paperwork cost associated with this AD 

has been detailed in the Costs of 

Compliance section of this document 

and includes time for reviewing 

instructions, as well as completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Therefore, all reporting associated with 

this AD is mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden 

and suggestions for reducing the burden 

should be directed 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 

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) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(3) 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. 

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: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39738 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

2022–13–13 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39– 

22099; Docket No. FAA–2022–0382; 

Project Identifier MCAI–2021–01452–T. 

(a) Effective Date 

This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective August 9, 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 end of the 

maintenance visit/check during which the 

inspection was performed. 

(ii) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the end of the 

maintenance visit/check during which the 

inspection was performed or within 30 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

(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) 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 

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. 

(m) 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

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

2021. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) 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 

material on the EASA website at https://

ad.easa.europa.eu. 

(4) 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. 

(5) You may view this material that is 

incorporated by reference at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at NARA, email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: https://

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

Issued on June 15, 2022. 

Christina Underwood, 

Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14195 Filed 7–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0511; Project 

Identifier AD–2020–01229–E; Amendment 

39–22101; AD 2022–13–15] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Williams 

International Co., L.L.C. Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1