AD 2014-24-07

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the fuselage during a fatigue test campaign. This AD requires repetitive rototest inspections for cracking; corrective actions if necessary; and modification of the torsion box, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the side box beam flange of the fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Final rule.

Adoption of the Amendment \n\n\n\tAccordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: \n\nPART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n0 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: \n\n\n\tAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. \n\n\n\nSec. 39.13 (Amended) \n\n0 2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): \n\n2014-24-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-18040. Docket No. FAA-2014-0193; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-234-AD. \n\n(a) Effective Date \n\n\n\tThis AD becomes effective January 9, 2015. \n\n(b) Affected ADs \n\n\n\tNone. \n\n(c) Applicability \n\n\n\tThis AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and - 133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and - 233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, - 231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 21202 has been embodied in production, except those on which Modification 152569 has been embodied in production. \n\n(d) Subject \n\n\n\tAir Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage. \n\n(e) Reason \n\n\n\tThis AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the side box beam flange of the fuselage at the frame (FR) 43 level during a fatigue test campaign. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the side box beam flange of the fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane. \n\n(f) Compliance \n\n\n\tComply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. \n\n(g) Inspection \n\n\n\tAt the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a rototest inspection for cracking of the beam flange of the stiffener 15 side box on the left- and right-hand sides in the FR43 area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of AirbusService Bulletin A320-53-1258, dated October 18, 2012. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight cycles or 15,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first. \n\t(1) Before exceeding 24,000 flight cycles or 48,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the airplane's first flight. \n\t(2) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD. \n\n(h) Corrective Action \n\n\n\tIf any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). \n\n(i) Modification \n\n\n\tBefore exceeding 48,000 flight cycles or 96,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the airplane's first flight: Modify the fittings on the left- and right-hand sides of the torsion box, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, Revision 01, dated October 18, 2013; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, Revision 01, dated October 18, 2013, specifies to contact Airbus for repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. \n\n(j) Terminating Action \n\n\n\tModification of the airplane as required by paragraph (i) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. \n\n(k) Credit for Previous Actions \n\n\n\tThis paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, dated November 16, 2012, which is not incorporated byreference in this AD. \n\n(l) Other FAA AD Provisions \n\n\n\tThe following provisions also apply to this AD: \n\t(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057- 3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD. \n\t(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 Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. \n\n(m) Related Information \n\n\n\t(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0261, dated October 28, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0193-0002. \n\t(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD. \n\n(n) Material Incorporated by Reference \n\n\n\t(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. \n\t(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. \n\t(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, Revision 01, dated October 18, 2013. \n\t(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1258, dated October 18, 2012. \n\t(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.airwortheas@airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.com. \n\t(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. \n\t(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Discussion \n\n\n\tWe issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2014 (79 FR 19846). \n\tThe European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0261, dated October 28, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ''the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states: \n\n\n\tDuring the full scale fatigue test campaign of the A320 family type design, a crack was reported in the fuselage side box beam flange at frame (FR) 43 level, both sides. \n\tThis condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.For the reason describe above, this (EASA) AD requires repetitive inspections of the fuselage side box beam flange at FR43, and, depending on findings, corrective action(s) (repair). This (EASA) AD also requires a modification, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. \n\nThe modification includes related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative actions include a rotoprobe inspection of the holes for cracks, and a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks. The corrective action includes repair. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0193-0002. \n\nComments \n\n\n\tWe gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 19846, April 10, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nRequest To Remove Requirement To Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals \n\n\n\tAirlines for America, Inc. (A4A), on behalf of several affected member airlines, requested that we revise paragraphs (h), (i), and (l)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 19846, April 10, 2014) to remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals. The commenters have made this request because this proposed requirement is overly broad and would add significant cost and complexity to their operations. The commenters were concerned that this proposed requirement would set a precedent for how repairs are approved, and could negatively affect all U.S. operators of foreign-manufactured airplanes. \n\tWe concur with the commenters' request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals specifically refer to this AD. \n\tSince late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled ''Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA- approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved. \n\tIn the NPRM (79 FR 19846, April 10, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase ''its delegated agent'' to include ''the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)'' to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD. \n\tComments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 19846, April 10, 2014) about these proposed changes. One commenter, UPS, stated the following: ''The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.'' \n\tThis comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages \n\n((Page 72125)) \n\nprovided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. \n\tTo address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it ''Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA. \n\tThe Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA- approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA- approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information. \n\tThis clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are ''Required for Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance. \n\tOther commenters pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit. \n\tBased on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate. \n\tWe have also decided not to include a generic reference to either the ''delegated agent'' or the ''DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we will provide the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tWe reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes: \n\tAre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19846, April 10, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19846, April 10, 2014). \n\tWe also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry. \n\tWe also estimate that it would take about 178 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $31,334 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $39,540,864, or $46,464 per product. \n\tWe have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. \n\nAuthority for 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\tWe are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in ''Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section44701: 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\tWe determined that 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\t1. Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; \n\t2. Is not a ''significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); \n\t3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and \n\t4. 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\nExamining the AD Docket \n\n\n\tYou may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0193; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone \n\n((Page 72126)) \n\n800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.