Discussion \n\n\n\tThe EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0005, dated January 13, 2020 (''EASA AD 2020-0005'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ''the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certified by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. \n\tThe FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, - 113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, - 131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2020 (85 FR 16011). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks on continuity fittings at the lower framing of the front windshield on airplanes on which a certain production modification has been embodied. Additional analysis showed that certain certification requirements for damage tolerance and fatigue are not met on airplanes in a certain post-production modification configuration. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive HFEC inspections of the central node windshield area for cracking, and applicable corrective actions if cracking is found, as specified in an EASA AD. \n\tThe FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracks on continuity fittings at the lower framing of the front windshield on airplanes on whichAirbus Production Modification 22058 (which is included in Airbus Modification 21999) has been embodied. Additional analysis showed that certain certification requirements for damage tolerance and fatigue are not met on airplanes in a post-production Modification 22058 configuration. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which could lead to failure of the continuity fittings at the lower node of the windshield central frame, possibly resulting in decompression of the airplane and injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information. \n\nComments \n\n\n\tThe FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response. \n\nRequest To Allow Alternative Repair Methods \n\n\n\tUnited Airlines requested that for the threshold inspection, instead of using the inspection procedures specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1331, dated January 14, 2019 (''Airbus SB A320-53- 1331''), the final rule allow operators to substitute previous repairs done using the procedures in Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) task 531129 (special detailed inspection of center node continuity fittings and windshield on the left-hand and right-hand sides) of the Airbus Model A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), and procedures for ongoing repairs that contain unique inspection programs, which are described in Airbus SB A320-53-1331. The commenter stated that this would prevent discrepancies when operators did threshold inspections using the procedures described in Airbus SB A320-53-1331. The commenter noted that the inspection procedures in Airbus SB A320- 53-1331 are based on an assumption that the area of inspection has not been repaired. \n\tIn addition, the commenter remarked that paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0005 partially addresses the issue of inspections done in areas that were previously repaired. The commenter pointed out thatparagraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0005 addresses only the central lower node continuity fittings but that the required inspection involves both the windshield frame and central lower node continuity fittings. The commenter explained that the central lower node fittings are a portion of the general lower windshield frame attachment inspection area. The commenter stated that it has airplanes with reinforcement repairs on the windshield frame and that those repairs were developed by Airbus. The commenter shared that the repair design approval sheet (RDAS) provided by Airbus stated ''impact to ALI 531129'' since the repair reinforced and covered the windshield frame pockets. The commenter concluded that a new inspection method and inspection intervals were defined in that RDAS. \n\tFurthermore, the commenter noted that windshield replacement is a substantial cost and burden to operators, and alternative repairs are highly desirable to reduce the cost of a windshield frame and continuity fittingrepair. \n\tAlthough the FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern about window replacement costs, the agency disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA is not aware of a global RDAS, issued under Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval, that is applicable to the entire U.S.- registered airplane fleet. The RDAS issued to United Airlines is specific to the configuration of the airplanes in United Airlines' fleet. Therefore, the FAA cannot revise corrective actions relative to the unsafe condition identified in this AD for the entire U.S.- registered fleet based on the United Airlines' fleet configuration, which was altered by certain previously approved repairs. Paragraph (i)(1) of this AD states that operators may use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if an airplane's configuration does not allow compliance with the requirements of an AD. \n\tIn addition, paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2020-0005 specifies that accomplishmentof inspections using ALI task 531129, as specified in table 1 to paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0005, is acceptable for compliance with \n\n((Page 53154)) \n\nthe requirements of paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0005 for only the first inspection that is required after the effective date of that EASA AD. \n\tEASA, the State of Design Authority for these airplane models, conducted a risk assessment, along with a cost benefit analysis, and developed corrective actions that are required to mitigate the risk of the unsafe condition addressed in EASA AD 2020-0005. The FAA finds that the service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0005, including the modification procedure in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1329, dated December 21, 2018 (''Airbus SB A320-53-1329''), is necessary to address the unsafe condition. The purpose of the actions specified in Airbus SB A320-53-1329 is to prevent cracks on the front windshield frame and continuity fitting by installing reinforced parts. Therefore, the FAA has not revised this AD regarding this issue. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tThe FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes: \n\tAre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. \n\nRelated IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51 \n\n\n\tEASA AD 2020-0005 describes procedures for repetitive HFEC inspections of the central node windshield area for cracking, and applicable corrective actions if cracking is found. The corrective actions include modification or repair. 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. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tThe FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,203 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs for Required Actions * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per Cost on U.S. \n\tLabor cost Parts cost product operators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,615........................ $0 $1,615 $1,942,845 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.\n\n\n\n\tThe 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 onthese figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $102,255, or $85 per product. \n\tThe FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on- condition modifications 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 these on-condition modifications: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs of On-Condition Modifications * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \n\tCost per \n\tLabor cost Parts cost product ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,122 work-hours x $85 per hour = $316,043 $411,413 \n\t$95,370.............................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \n* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency\n\n\tto provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified inthis AD. \n\nPaperwork Reduction Act \n\n\n\tA 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. \n\nAuthorityfor This Rulemaking \n\n\n\tTitle 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. \n\tThe 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tThis 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\n((Page 53155)) \n\n\n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, \n\t(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and \n\t(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. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.