AD 2016-06-03

This AD becomes effective April 22, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 22, 2016.

For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, 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.

For Goodrich Aerostructures service information identified in this final rule, contact UTC Aerospace Systems, ATTN: Christopher Newth—V2500 A1/A5 Project Engineer, Aftermarket—Aerostructures; 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA; telephone 619-498-7505; email christopher.newth@utas.utc.com.

You may view this referenced 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2963.

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.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A319-131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-232 and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-131, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45462) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0004, dated January 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A319-131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-232 and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-131, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

A number of forward engine mount pins, Part Number (P/N) 740-2022-501, intended for IAE V2500 series engines, have been reported as non-compliant with the current certification requirements, due to a quality issue during manufacturing of the raw material. It was also determined that a batch of 88 affected pins are installed on in-service aeroplanes fitted with forward engine mount P/N 745-2010-503 and the serial numbers (s/n) of the affected pins and the [manufacturer serial number] MSN of the related aeroplanes have been identified.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to forward engine mount pin failure, possibly resulting in in-flight loss of an engine and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of the affected forward engine mount pins and removal from service [replacement] of those pins.

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-2015-2963.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines (UAL) requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be re-written to clarify which attachment pin part numbers can be used as replacement parts.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree to provide clarification but we do not agree to revise paragraph (h) of this AD. Paragraph (h) of this AD states to replace with a serviceable part having a part number other than part number(P/N) 740-2022-501, and having a serial number that is not identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD. In other words, the replacement part cannot have a combination of P/N 740-2022-501 and any serial number that is included in figure 1 to paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

JetBlue requested clarification of the intent of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. JetBlue asserted that the way this paragraph is written it contradicts the requirements in EASA AD 2015-0004, dated January 13, 2015, and the intent of the inspection in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD.

We agree with the commenter's request to clarify the intent of paragraph (i) of this AD. Airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers not identified in figure 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD that have not had an engine replaced after March 1, 2011, are not required to do the actions mandated by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, which corresponds to paragraph (2) of the MCAI AD. In paragraph (i) of the proposed AD we inadvertently specified “airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers identified in figure 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD.” We have changed paragraph (i) of this AD to specify “airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers not identified in figure 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD.”

UAL requested that the compliance times in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be extended. UAL stated that this would keep costs down and “make engine removal the most likely time the inspection would occur.” UAL also asserted that the safety concern is overstated based on information in the Goodrich Aerostructures service information. The “Background” paragraph of the Goodrich Aerostructures service information states that “a minor metallurgical discontinuity” was found on some forward engine mount crossbeam to main beam attach pins (P/N 740-2022-501). UAL stated that a minor metallurgical issue should not drive a significant safety concern.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. Even a “minor metallurgical discontinuity” can result in a safety concern. Forward engine mount attachment pins that were manufactured from discrepant raw material can lead to the failure of a forward engine mount attachment pin; this condition could result in possible loss of an engine in-flight and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

After considering all of the available information, we have determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner with the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the replacement. However, under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL requested that the estimated costs of compliance in the NPRM be increased from $156,740 to $313,480. UAL also requested that the costs for opening and closing the reversers be mentioned as costs that cannot be calculated. Furthermore, UAL stated that based on the proposed compliance times in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and the size of the UAL fleet, the proposed requirements would have to be scheduled independently from its maintenance schedule.

We agree with the commenter's request to increase the estimated costs for compliance with the requirements of this AD. We note that these are only estimated costs and may vary based on an airplane's configuration. We also acknowledge that the costs for opening and closing the reversers are not known and are not included in the “Costs of Compliance” paragraph of this AD. However, as specified in the service information, the inspection takes approximately 4 work-hours, with an estimated cost of $313,480 for U.S. operators. We have changed the “Costs of Compliance” paragraph of this AD accordingly.

JetBlue Airways (JetBlue) requested that the NPRM be revised to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1064, Revision 01, dated April 1, 2015; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0323, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2015. JetBlue noted that the service information for both Airbus and Goodrich Aerostructures had been revised since the NPRM was published.

We agree with the commenter's request and have revised the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section and paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1064, Revision 01, dated April 1, 2015; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0323, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2015. We have also added new paragraph (l) to this AD to give credit for actions done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1064, dated November 5, 2014; and Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0323, dated September 18, 2014. We redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

JetBlue requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised to allow operators to use either the Airbus service information or the Goodrich Aerostructures service information to do the actions required by that paragraph. JetBlue stated that if the engine is being inspected at the shop, the actions in the Airbus service information would not be accomplished because the Airbus service information addresses inspections of the wing. JetBlue also stated this revision would correspond with the requirements in corresponding EASA AD 2015-0004, dated January 13, 2015.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to allow operators to have the option of doing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD in accordance with either the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information or the Goodrich Aerostructures service information. The Airbus service information includes steps that are considered “required for compliance” (RC) and those steps are not included in the Goodrich Aerostructures service information. In addition, Goodrich Aerostructures Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0323, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2015, does not distinguish between “RC” and non-“RC” steps and refers to the Airbus service bulletin for incorporation of several steps. Therefore, regardless of whether the AD requirements are accomplished “on wing” or “in shop,” operators must use a combination of Airbus and Goodrich Aerostructures service information for accomplishing the AD requirements. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

We 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:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1064, Revision 01, dated April 1, 2015; and Goodrich Aerostructures has issued Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0323, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the serial number of the attachment pins for the forward engine mount crossbeam to main beam for each engine, and replacement of affected pins. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 922 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $313,480, or $340 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $1,724, for a cost of $2,064 per attachment pin replacement. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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.

We 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):