44974 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed 

Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, on 

December 11, 2017. 

Amendment Number 10, Revision 1, 

Effective Date: April 25, 2017. 

Renewed Amendment Number 10, 

Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 

2017. 

Amendment Number 11 Effective 

Date: January 7, 2014, superseded by 

Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on 

April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed 

Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, on 

December 11, 2017. 

Amendment Number 11, Revision 1, 

Effective Date: April 25, 2017. 

Renewed Amendment Number 11, 

Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 

2017. 

Amendment Number 12 Effective 

Date: Amendment not issued by the 

NRC. 

Amendment Number 13 Effective 

Date: May 24, 2014, superseded by 

Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on 

April 25, 2017, superseded by Renewed 

Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, on 

December 11, 2017. 

Amendment Number 13, Revision 1, 

Effective Date: April 25, 2017. 

Renewed Amendment Number 13, 

Revision 1, Effective Date: December 11, 

2017. 

Amendment Number 14 Effective 

Date: April 25, 2017, superseded by 

Renewed Amendment Number 14, on 

December 11, 2017. 

Renewed Amendment Number 14 

Effective Date: December 11, 2017. 

SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc. 

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis 

Report for the Standardized NUHOMS®

Horizontal Modular Storage System for 

Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. 

Docket Number: 72–1004. 

Certificate Expiration Date: January 

23, 2015. 

Renewed Certificate Expiration Date: 

January 23, 2055. 

Model Number: NUHOMS®–24P, 

–24PHB, –24PTH, –32PT, –32PTH1, 

–37PTH, –52B, –61BT, –61BTH, and 

–69BTH. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of September, 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Frederick D. Brown, 

Acting Executive Director of Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20709 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–9074; Product 

Identifier 2016–NM–097–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

for all Airbus Model A318–111 and 

–112 airplanes; Model A319–111, –112, 

–113, –114, and –115 airplanes; Model 

A320–211, –212, and –214 airplanes; 

and Model A321–111, –112, –211, –212, 

and –213 airplanes. This action revises 

the NPRM by expanding the list of 

affected engine fan cowl door (FCD) part 

numbers and adding Airbus Model 

A320–216 airplanes to the applicability. 

We are proposing this Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. Since these 

actions impose an additional burden 

over those proposed in the NPRM, we 

are reopening the comment period to 

allow the public the chance to comment 

on these proposed changes. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR 

65980), is reopened. 

We must receive comments on this 

SNPRM by November 13, 2017. 

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 

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 

Standards Branch, 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–2016– 

9074; 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 Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, 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–2016–9074; Product Identifier 

2016–NM–097–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to all Airbus Model A318–111 

and –112 airplanes, Model A319–111, 

–112, –113, –114, and –115 airplanes, 

Model A320–211, –212, and –214 

airplanes, and Model A321–111, –112, 

–211, –212, and –213 airplanes. The 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44975 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on September 26, 2016 (81 FR 

65980) (‘‘the NPRM’’). The NPRM was 

prompted by reports of engine FCD 

losses on airplanes equipped with 

CFM56 engines due to operator failure 

to close the FCD during ground 

operations. The NPRM proposed to 

require modification and reidentification, or replacement, of certain 

FCDs. The NPRM also proposed to 

require installation of a placard. 

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, issued AD 2016–0257, dated 

December 16, 2016 (referred to after this 

as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’). The MCAI added part number 

238–0301–509 to the list of affected 

FCDs. In addition, we have certified 

Airbus Model A320–216 airplanes, 

which are also affected by the identified 

unsafe condition. Therefore, we have 

added Airbus Model A320–216 

airplanes to the applicability of this 

SNPRM. 

EASA has issued the MCAI to correct 

an unsafe condition for all Airbus 

Model A318–111 and –112 airplanes; 

Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, and 

–115 airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, 

–214, and –216 airplanes; and Model 

A321–111, –112, –211, –212, and –213 

airplanes. The MCAI states: 

Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses were reported 

on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56 

engines. Investigation results confirmed that 

in all cases the fan cowls were opened prior 

to the flight and were not correctly resecured. During the pre-flight inspection, it 

was then not detected that the FCD[s] were 

not properly latched. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of a 

FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the 

aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the 

ground. 

Prompted by these events, new FCD front 

latch and keeper assembly were developed, 

having a specific key necessary to un-latch 

the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless 

the FCD front latch is safely closed. The key, 

after removal, must be stowed in the flight 

deck at a specific location, as instructed in 

the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual. 

Applicable Flight Crew Operating Manuals 

have been amended accordingly. After 

modification, the FCD is identified with a 

different Part Number (P/N). Airbus issued 

Service Bulletin (SB) A320–71–1068 to 

provide the modification instructions. 

Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016–0069 

to require modification and re-identification 

of [affected] FCD[s] [or replacement of 

affected FCDs]. 

After that [EASA] AD was published, FCD 

P/N 238–0301–509 was identified as missing 

in the list of affected FCD P/N[s] provided in 

the [EASA] AD. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD retains the requirement of EASA 

AD 2016–0069, which is superseded, and 

expands the list of affected FCD P/N[s]. 

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–2016– 

9074. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A320–71–1068, Revision 01, dated April 

28, 2016. This service information 

describes procedures for modifying the 

left-hand and right-hand FCDs on 

engines 1 and 2; installing a placard; 

and re-identifying both the left-hand 

and right-hand FCDs with a new part 

number. 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. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this proposed 

AD. We considered the comments 

received. 

Support for the NPRM 

The Air Line Pilots Association, 

International stated that it supports the 

NPRM. 

Requests To Revise the Costs of 

Compliance 

American Airlines commented that 

the parts cost shown in the proposed 

AD (in the NPRM) is for only one engine 

instead of two. 

We agree that the costs specified in 

the Costs of Compliance section of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) were only 

for one engine. We have revised the 

Costs of Compliance section in this 

SNPRM to show the cost for two 

engines. 

American Airlines also requested that 

the cost of maintenance activities 

associated with the service 

information—e.g., re-rigging all cowl 

latches during embodiment, or other 

recording, tracking, and supply chain 

costs—be included in the Costs of 

Compliance section of the NPRM. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. We recognize that, in 

accomplishing the requirements of any 

AD, operators might incur additional 

maintenance or ‘‘incidental’’ costs in 

addition to the ‘‘direct’’ costs that are 

reflected in the cost analysis presented 

in the preamble of a proposed AD. 

However, the cost analysis in AD 

rulemaking actions typically does not 

include maintenance or incidental costs. 

We have not changed this SNPRM 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Change the Compliance 

Time for the Modification 

American Airlines requested that the 

compliance time for the modification be 

changed from 35 months to 48 months. 

American Airlines stated that more time 

is necessary due to the size of its fleet 

and the lead time to obtain parts. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to extend the compliance time. 

In developing an appropriate 

compliance time for this action, we 

considered the safety implications, parts 

availability, and normal maintenance 

schedules for the timely 

accomplishment of the modification. In 

consideration of these items, as well as 

the reports of FCD losses in service, we 

have determined that a 35-month 

compliance time will ensure an 

acceptable level of safety and allow the 

modifications to be done during 

scheduled maintenance intervals for 

most affected operators. In addition, we 

find that 35 months provides sufficient 

time to order parts and accomplish the 

required modification. However, under 

the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this 

proposed AD, we will consider requests 

for approval of an extension of the 

compliance time if sufficient data are 

submitted to substantiate that the 

change would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. We have not changed 

this proposed AD in this regard. 

Request To Be Specific About Which 

FCDs Require Modification 

Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that 

we specify which FCDs need to be 

modified by listing the FCD serial 

numbers (S/N) in paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM). Paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would 

mandate reworking all FCDs on the 

affected aircraft. Delta stated that 

Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071– 

163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, 

specifies which FCDs require 

modification by identifying the 

applicable serial numbers. Delta stated 

that FCDs with serial numbers not listed 

in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071– 

163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, 

do not require modification. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. The State of Design Authority 

(EASA) and Airbus have determined the 

scope of discrepant FCD part numbers, 

which are identified in table 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD 

as ‘‘old P/N.’’ The objective of the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44976 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071– 

163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, 

is to provide instructions for 

modification. Delta has not provided 

any substantiation in support of its 

suggestion that the serial numbers 

identified in the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) that are not listed in Goodrich 

Service Bulletin RA32071–163, Revision 

3, dated October 11, 2016, are not 

affected by the identified unsafe 

condition. We have not changed this 

proposed AD in this regard. 

Request To Remove Requirement To 

Re-Identify FCDs After Modification 

Delta requested that paragraph (g)(3) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be 

removed. Delta indicated that the 

proposed AD would mandate that the 

modified FCD be re-identified as 

specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), 

(h), (i), and (k) of this AD. Delta noted 

that this information and reidentification is already specified in 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–71–1068, 

Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016; and 

Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071– 

163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016. 

Delta indicated that table 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h) (i) and (k) of the 

proposed AD is a duplication of the reidentification requirement in paragraph 

(g)(1) of the proposed AD, and lends 

itself to confusion and errors. Delta 

proposed to delete the requirement in 

paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM). Alternatively, Delta 

recommended that paragraph (g)(3) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM) refer to 

step 3.I.H. in Goodrich Service Bulletin 

RA32071–163, Revision 3, dated 

October 11, 2016, for the correct reidentification requirement. 

We do not agree to remove paragraph 

(g)(3) of the proposed AD or refer to 

Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071– 

163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016. 

However, we do agree to clarify 

paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD. 

We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this 

proposed AD to clarify that modified 

parts as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of 

this proposed AD are re-identified to the 

correct ‘‘new’’ part number identified in 

table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) 

of this proposed AD. 

Requests To Remove Requirement for 

Placard 

Delta requested that we remove the 

requirement for installing a placard on 

the flight deck stowage compartment 

area to note the location of the keys to 

the FCD latches. American Airlines and 

Delta both indicated that the placard 

and the location of the keys are not 

safety-related. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. Installation of the placard is 

designed to ensure that the key is 

stowed in a particular location onboard 

the airplane and can be consistently 

retrieved from that location when 

needed. An operator may apply for 

approval of an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) 

of this AD, provided it can be shown 

that there is an alternative means to 

ensure the key is stowed onboard the 

airplane in a constantly retrievable and 

accessible location. 

Request To Remove Reference to 

Certain Instructions for Installing 

Replacement FCDs 

Delta requested that the alternative 

action in paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) to install 

replacement FCDs using instructions 

‘‘. . . approved by the Manager, 

International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or 

Airbus’s EASA Design Organization 

Approval (DOA),’’ be removed from the 

proposed AD. Delta noted that neither 

the service information nor the MCAI 

indicate any airworthiness concerns 

with the FCD installation. Delta stated 

that the on-wing work does not involve 

checking or re-installing the FCD; it 

involves only replacing the latch 

assembly. Delta requested that the 

proposed AD either specify the 

airworthiness concern regarding the 

procedure or provide FAA-approved 

instructions. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. Installation of a new part using 

procedures that are not approved might 

result in an inadvertent addition of an 

unsafe condition. We have coordinated 

with Airbus and EASA and agreed that 

the installation must be done in 

accordance with the approved methods 

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

this proposed AD. 

Request To Allow Modification of 

Spare FCDs Using Goodrich Service 

Bulletin 

American Airlines requested that the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised 

to allow modification of spare FCDs in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Goodrich Service 

Bulletin RA32071–163, Revision 3, 

dated October 11, 2016, when an FCD 

is modified while off the airplane. 

American Airlines indicated that the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–71–1068, 

Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016, 

contain procedures that are only 

applicable to FCDs that are installed on 

an airplane. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request and have determined that 

clarification is necessary. Paragraph (h) 

of this proposed AD allows installation 

of replacement parts that are acceptable 

for compliance with paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (g)(3) of this proposed AD using 

methods other than Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–71–1068, Revision 01, 

dated April 28, 2016, that are approved 

by the Manager, International Section, 

Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or 

EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. We have 

not changed this SNPRM in this regard. 

Request To Allow Flight With 

Alternative Configuration 

Delta noted that paragraph (k) of the 

proposed AD would prohibit installing 

any FCD that has an old part number 

after the AD effective date. Delta noted 

that it is possible to have an airplane on 

which only one FCD is removed for 

maintenance. Delta requested that we 

clarify whether it is acceptable to have 

an aircraft with a mix of old and new 

part numbers on the FCDs, prior to the 

compliance deadline. 

We agree to provide clarification. We 

have revised the requirement in 

paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to 

match the corresponding requirement in 

the EASA AD. If an ‘‘old’’ part is 

installed prior to the effective date of 

this AD, then after modification of this 

part to a ‘‘new’’ part, installation of an 

‘‘old’’ part is prohibited as specified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. If 

a ‘‘new’’ part is installed, then as of the 

effective date of this AD, installation of 

an ‘‘old’’ part is prohibited as specified 

in paragraph (k)(2) of this proposed AD. 

These requirements apply to both 

engines. 

Requests To Change Parts Installation 

Prohibition 

American Airlines, Virgin America, 

and Delta requested that the parts 

installation prohibition in paragraph (k) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be 

changed to allow affected FCDs to be 

installed on airplanes up to 35 months 

after the effective date of the AD. The 

commenters noted that FCDs are 

routinely removed for maintenance, and 

stated that the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) would require any removed FCD 

with an ‘‘old’’ part number to be 

modified immediately. The commenters 

indicated that this requirement was 

overly restrictive when compared to the 

MCAI requirements or the compliance 

time specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD, which requires modifying FCDs 

within 35 months after the effective date 

of this AD. 

We agree to provide clarification. As 

stated previously in the comment 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44977 

response to ‘‘Request To Allow Flight 

With Alternative Configuration,’’ we 

have revised the requirement in 

paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to 

match the corresponding requirement in 

the EASA AD. 

Requests To Allow Use of Later 

Revisions of Service Information 

American Airlines and Delta 

requested that the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) be revised to allow the use of 

later revisions of service information. 

American Airlines indicated that the 

MCAI states: ‘‘The use of later approved 

revisions of this document is acceptable 

for compliance with the requirements of 

this AD.’’ 

We do not concur with the 

commenters’ request. We cannot refer to 

any document that does not yet exist. In 

general terms, we are required by the 

Office of the Federal Register’s (OFR) 

regulations to either publish the service 

document contents as part of the actual 

AD language; or submit the service 

document to the OFR for approval as 

‘‘referenced’’ material, in which case we 

may only refer to such material in the 

text of an AD. We may refer to the 

service document in the AD only if the 

OFR approved it for ‘‘incorporation by 

reference.’’ See 1 CFR part 51. 

To allow operators to use later 

revisions of the referenced document 

(issued after publication of the AD), 

either we must revise the AD to 

reference specific later revisions, or 

operators must request approval to use 

later revisions as an AMOC with this 

AD under the provisions of paragraph 

(n)(1) of this AD. 

Request To Use an Alternative 

Procedure for Modifying FCDs 

Allegiant Air stated it has developed 

a procedure that requires a log entry 

each time an FCD is opened or closed. 

Allegiant Air noted that all of its FCD 

latches are painted bright orange in 

contrast to the blue color of the FCDs, 

which makes it easier for the crew to 

detect any unlatched doors and take 

corrective action. Allegiant Air 

suggested that these methods are 

sufficient to prevent any events caused 

by improperly closed and latched FCDs. 

Allegiant Air suggested that a 

modification to the FCDs is unnecessary 

if this procedure is followed. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. EASA, as the State of Design 

Authority for Airbus products, has 

determined after conducting a risk 

analysis that an unsafe condition exists. 

EASA’s analysis took into consideration 

the in-service events in the worldwide 

fleet that occurred despite some of the 

design or maintenance improvement 

methods that were implemented, 

including the ones noted by Allegiant 

Air. We agree with EASA’s decision to 

mitigate the risk by mandating a new 

design solution, which makes it 

apparent to the flight crew on a preflight walk-around that an FCD is not 

latched. Although the commenter’s 

specific proposal is not considered 

acceptable to address the identified 

unsafe condition, operators may request 

approval of an AMOC using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) 

of this AD, provided they can show they 

have an alternative means to ensure the 

FCD is properly closed and locked. We 

have not changed this SNPRM in this 

regard. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This SNPRM 

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 these same 

type designs. 

Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the NPRM. As a 

result, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

the public to comment on this SNPRM. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this SNPRM affects 

400 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this SNPRM: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Modification, placard installation, and re-identification (or 

replacement) of FCD.

Up to 11 work-hours × $85 

per hour = $935.

$9,730 $10,665 (for two 

engines).

$4,266,000 

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. 

This proposed AD is issued in 

accordance with authority delegated by 

the Executive Director, Aircraft 

Certification Service, as authorized by 

FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance 

with that order, issuance of ADs is 

normally a function of the Compliance 

and Airworthiness Division, but during 

this transition period, the Executive 

Director has delegated the authority to 

issue ADs applicable to transport 

category airplanes to the Director of the 

System Oversight Division. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44978 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2016–9074; Product 

Identifier 2016–NM–097–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by November 

13, 2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, 

certificated in any category, identified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, all 

manufacturer serial numbers. 

(1) Airbus Model A318–111 and –112 

airplanes. 

(2) Airbus Model A319–111, –112, –113, 

–114, and –115 airplanes. 

(3) Airbus Model A320–211, –212, –214 

and –216 airplanes. 

(4) Airbus Model A321–111, –112, –211, 

–212, and –213 airplanes. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 71, Powerplant. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

engine fan cowl door (FCD) losses on 

airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due 

to operator failure to close the FCD during 

ground operations. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and 

possible consequent damage to the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Modification of Affected FCDs 

Within 35 months after the effective date 

of this AD, accomplish concurrently the 

actions in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) 

of this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–71–1068, Revision 01, 

dated April 28, 2016. 

(1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand 

FCDs on engines 1 and 2 that have an old 

part number (‘‘Old P/N’’), as applicable, as 

specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), 

and (k) of this AD. 

(2) Install a placard on the box located at 

the bottom of the 120-volt unit (120 VU) 

panel, or at the bottom of the coat stowage, 

as applicable to airplane configuration. 

(3) Re-identify the modified left-hand and 

right-hand FCDs with the new part number 

(‘‘New P/N’’), as applicable, as specified in 

table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of 

this AD. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44979 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALSEP27SE17.013</GPH>

Table 1 to Paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD- Fan Cowl Door Part Number 

(PIN) Change 

Door Position Old PIN New PIN 

Left-hand side- CFM56-5A engines 238-0301-501 238M0301-501 

238-0301-503 238M0301-503 

238-0301-505 238M0301-505 

238-0301-507 238M0301-507 

238-0301-509 238M0301-509 

238-0301-511 238M0301-511 

238-0301-513 238M0301-513 

238-0301-515 238M0301-515 

238-0301-517 238M0301-517 

238-0301-519 238M0301-519 

238-0301-521 238M0301-521 

238-0301-523 238M0301-523 

238-0301-525 238M0301-525 

238-0301-527 238M0301-527 

238-0301-529 238-0301-533 

238-0301-531 238-0301-535 

Right-hand side- CFM56-5A engines 238-0302-501 238M0302-501 

238-0302-503 238M0302-503 

238-0302-505 238M0302-505 

238-0302-509 238M0302-509 

238-0302-511 238M0302-511 

238-0302-513 238M0302-513 

238-0302-515 238M0302-515 

238-0302-517 238M0302-517 

238-0302-519 238M0302-519 

238-0302-521 238M0302-521 

238-0302-523 238M0302-523 

238-0302-525 238M0302-525 

238-0302-527 238M0302-527 

238-0302-529 238M0302-529 

238-0302-531 238M0302-531 

238-0302-533 238M0302-533 

238-0302-535 238M0302-535 

238-0302-537 238M0302-537 

238-0302-539 238-0302-547 

238-0302-541 238-0302-549 

238-0302-543 238-0302-551 

238-0302-545 238-0302-553 
44980 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(h) Optional Replacement of Affected FCDs 

With New Door Design 

Replacing the FCDs having a P/N listed as 

‘‘Old P/N’’ in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), 

(i), and (k) of this AD with the FCDs having 

the corresponding P/Ns listed as ‘‘New P/N’’ 

in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) 

of this AD is acceptable for compliance with 

the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(3) of this AD. The replacement must be 

done in accordance with instructions 

approved by the Manager, International 

Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; 

or the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). 

(i) Compliance Information for Airplanes on 

Which Airbus Modification 157517 Is 

Embodied 

Accomplishment of Airbus modification 

157517 on an airplane in production is 

acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) 

of this AD, provided that no FCD having a 

part number identified as ‘‘Old P/N’’ in table 

1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD 

is installed on that airplane. 

(j) Compliance Information for Airplanes on 

Which Airbus Modification 157519 or 

Modification 157521 Is Embodied 

Accomplishment of Airbus modification 

157519 or modification 157521 on an 

airplane in production is acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. 

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition 

(1) For any airplane with any FCD installed 

having a P/N identified as ‘‘Old P/N’’ in table 

1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD 

as of the effective date of this AD: No person 

may install on an airplane a part number 

identified as ‘‘Old P/N’’ in table 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD after 

accomplishing the requirements of paragraph 

(g) of this AD on that airplane. 

(2) For any airplane with only FCDs 

installed having P/Ns that are identified as 

‘‘New P/N’’ in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), 

(i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date 

of this AD: No person may install on any 

airplane a part number identified as ‘‘Old P/ 

N’’ in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and 

(k) of this AD as of the effective date of this 

AD. 

(l) Installation of Approved Parts 

Installation on an airplane of a right-hand 

or left-hand FCD having a part number 

approved after the effective date of this AD 

is acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) 

of this AD for that airplane only, provided 

the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) 

and (l)(2) of this AD are met. 

(1) The part number must be approved by 

the Manager, International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or 

Airbus’s EASA DOA. 

(2) The FCD installation must be 

accomplished in accordance with airplane 

modification instructions approved by the 

Manager, International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or 

Airbus’s EASA DOA. 

(m) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for actions 

required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–71–1068, Revision 00, dated 

December 18, 2015. 

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight Standards District 

Office, as appropriate. If sending information 

directly to the International Section, send it 

to the attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (o)(2) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOCREQUESTS@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. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Section, 

Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; 

or Airbus’s EASA DOA. If approved by the 

DOA, the approval must include the DOAauthorized signature. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2016–0257 dated 

December 16, 2016, 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–2016–9074. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer 

International Section, Transport Standards 

Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425– 

227–1405; fax 425–227–1149. 

(3) 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 service information at the 

FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 19, 2017. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20566 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALSEP27SE17.014</GPH>