SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The 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, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2025 (90 FR 44350). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2025-0078, dated April 9, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0078) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European ( printed page 31881) Union. The MCAI states that a deviation from the manufacturing process was detected during a review of the cold working process in the assembly line, which could adversely affect the fatigue life of the affected areas (forward pressure bulkhead connection to frame (FR) 35 for Airbus A319 and A320 airplanes and FR35.8 for Airbus A321 airplanes, between stringer (STR) 28 and STR 31, both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides; and fuselage skin at FR35 for Airbus A318, A319 and A320 airplanes and FR35.8 for Airbus A321 airplanes, at STR30, both LH and RH sides). This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive SDIs around the fastener holes at FR35, STR 28 to STR 31 to check if the fasteners and fastener holes are in nominal design condition, repetitive rototest or HFEC and rototest inspections around the fasteners and fastener holes for cracks, and applicable corrective actions, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0078. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2544.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

The FAA received comments from three commenters, including American Airlines (American), the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance, and JetBlue. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Correct a Typographical Error

American requested that the FAA correct a typographical error in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1520, dated November 18, 2024. American noted the instructions in that material, for Option 2, Configuration 002, specify to remove 12 fasteners whereas only 9 fasteners are shown in the corresponding figure. American stated Airbus confirmed via Repair and Design Approval Form (RDAF) 81664262/004/2025#A that only 9 fasteners are to be removed.

The FAA agrees and has added a new exception to paragraph (h)(4) of this AD, accordingly.

Request To Revise Fastener Removal Procedure

JetBlue requested that the FAA allow removal of the fasteners and inspection of all affected fasteners holes at the same time with any applicable repair to follow, instead of removal of one fastener at a time followed by inspection and repair of one fastener hole at a time, as specified in paragraph C(4)(b) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1519, dated November 18, 2024, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1520 dated November 18, 2024. JetBlue stated that Airbus confirmed via Tech Request 8159376 that 100% of the fasteners can be removed from the affected holes prior to performing non-destructive tests and corrective actions, if needed. JetBlue also stated this approach is intended to prevent work stoppages and improve efficiency during the inspection process.

The FAA agrees and has added a new exception to paragraph (h)(5) of this AD, accordingly.

Request To Justify Forgoing Notice and Comment or Issue an NPRM

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, or convert this action to an NPRM to extend the comment period and delay compliance enforcement. The commenter also requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the chronology of the underlying events and the quantitative risk assessment that justifies use of the good cause exemption.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

Request To Make Incorporation by Reference (IBR) Materials Reasonably Available

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA make IBR material available and free to the public during the comment period. The commenter asserted that this AD incorporates by reference manufacturer service information.

The FAA notes that this AD incorporates by reference EASA AD 2025-0078, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2025-0078 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0078 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0078 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Comply With the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that reporting is not required. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Consider Impact on Small Entities

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including the number of small entities operating affected airplanes, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that identifies alternatives to minimize impact if the cost analysis shows the impact on small entities is not de minimis.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This AD will affect 23 domestic entities, of which 8 are small entities. ( printed page 31882) The table below displays the industries of the small entities, their average annual revenue, and the AD's estimated cost burden relative to average annual revenue.

While the FAA has determined that this AD affects a substantial number of small entities, the compliance cost of the AD relative to small entities' annual revenue is minimal. The estimated cost per affected airplane is $5,355 (63 work-hours × $85 per work-hour). Based on the number of airplanes per small entity, the total cost burden is less than 3 percent of average annual revenue for all but one small entity. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the FAA certifies this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Provide Additional Cost Information

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the cost per small entity, including downtime and recordkeeping.

The FAA recognizes that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur indirect costs (such as loss of revenue due to airplane downtime, recordkeeping to document AD compliance, etc.) in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in an AD typically describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by an AD, which does not include indirect costs, since the FAA lacks data on those costs and they may vary significantly among operators. However, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because the requirements of this AD can be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the estimated cost per airplane on the U.S. registry. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to provide additional information in the AD docket. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Conclusion

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. 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.

Material Incorporated by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51

EASA AD 2025-0078 specifies procedures for repetitive SDIs around the fastener holes at FR35, STR 28 to STR 31 to check if the fasteners and fastener holes are in nominal design condition, repetitive rototest or HFEC and rototest inspections around the fasteners and fastener holes for cracks, and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include 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.

Costs of Compliance

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,474 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

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.

The Amendment

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