Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes, 5911-5915 [2015-01188]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations limits are needed for the affected turbine wheels. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the turbine wheels, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane. (e) Compliance Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. (1) For all RRC AE 3007A1, A1/1, A1/3, A1E, A1P, and A3 series engines with an HPT stage 2 wheel P/N and S/N identified in RRC ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72–408, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2014, at each shop visit after the effective date of this AD, eddy current inspect the bore of the affected HPT stage 2 wheels. Use RRC ASB No. AE 3007A– A–72–408, Revision 1, August 29, 2014, to do the inspection. Do not return to service any wheel that fails the inspection required by this AD. (2) Thirty days after the effective date of this AD, do not return to service any engine that has a turbine wheel with a P/N and an S/N listed in any of the following RRC ASBs whose wheel life exceeds the new life limits identified in the following RRC ASBs: (i) RRC ASB No. AE 2100D2–A–72–085, dated July 25, 2013; (ii) RRC ASB No. AE 2100D3–A–72–277, dated July 25, 2013; (iii) RRC ASB No. AE 2100P–A–72–019, dated July 25, 2013; (iv) RRC ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72–407, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2014; or (v) RRC ASB No. AE 3007C–A–72–316, dated December 6, 2013. (f) Installation Prohibition Thirty days after the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected wheel, as identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, into any RRC AE 3007C2 engine. (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (i) Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AE 2100D2–A–72–085, dated July 25, 2013. (ii) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 2100D3–A– 72–277, dated July 25, 2013. (iii) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 2100P–A–72– 019, dated July 25, 2013. (iv) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72– 407, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2014. (v) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72– 408, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2014. (vi) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 3007C–A–72– 316, dated December 6, 2013. (3) For RRC service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB– 01–06, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317– 230–1667; email: CMSEindyOSD@rollsroyce.com; Internet: www.rolls-royce.com. (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. (5) You may view this service information 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. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 13, 2015. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2015–01282 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES (g) Definition For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance is not an engine shop visit. RIN 2120–AA64 (i) Related Information For more information about this AD, contact Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847–294–7836; fax: 847–294–7834; email: kyri.zaroyiannis@faa.gov. 20:27 Feb 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2014–0138; Directorate Identifier 2013–NM–020–AD; Amendment 39–18086; AD 2015–02–19] Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks and accomplishment of applicable repairs, because of cracking in the rear spar web of the wings between certain ribs due to fatigue-related high shear stress. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue-related cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 11, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 11, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of December 27, 1995 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995). ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www. regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA2014-0138; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 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 Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. Discussion We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95–24–04 for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4–600, B4– 600R, and F4–600R series airplanes; and Model A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes. AD 95–24–04 required inspections to detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, and repair if necessary. This new AD reduces certain compliance times, and expands the We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995). AD 95–24–04 applied to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4–600, B4– 600R, and F4–600R series airplanes; and Model A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300–600 series airplanes). The NPRM AGENCY: SUMMARY: (j) Material Incorporated by Reference (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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Federal Aviation Administration 5911 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM 04FER1 5912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2014 (79 FR 13944). The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0013R1, dated February 20, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R series airplanes; and Model A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states: Wing fatigue tests carried out by Airbus revealed cracks on the vertical web of the rear spar between Ribs 1 and 2. Similar cracks in the same area were reportedly found by A300 aeroplane operators. In all cases, the cracks ran from the tip of the build slot to the nearest adjacent bolt hole. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane. To address this unsafe condition, DGAC ´ ´ [Direction Generale de l’Aviation Civile] France issued * * * [an AD] to require an eddy current inspection of the aft face of the wing rear spar in the area adjacent to the build slot on Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) wings. Since that [French] AD was issued, a fleet survey and updated fatigue and damage tolerance analysis were performed in order to substantiate the second A300–600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of the survey and analysis showed that the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks and accomplishment of an applicable corrective action. Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300–57–6059 Revision 04. For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 1997–375–239(B)R3, which is superseded, but redefines the thresholds and intervals. This [EASA] AD also expands the applicability to aeroplanes on which Airbus modification (mod) 12102 has been embodied in production and to aeroplanes on which Airbus SB A300–57–6063 (Airbus mod 11130) has been embodied in service. * * * * You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail; D=FAA-2014-0138-0003. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES * Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014) and the FAA’s response to each comment. Request To Clarify Applicability UPS requested confirmation that Model A300 F4–622R airplanes, which VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:27 Feb 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 have Airbus Modification 12102 embodied, do not require inspection per the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014). We agree to clarify the applicability. Model A300 F4–622R airplanes are not included in the applicability of this AD. No change is necessary to this AD in this regard. Requests To Clarify Inspection Threshold UPS and FedEx requested clarification of the inspection threshold for post-modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6063) airplanes. The commenters asked if the inspection threshold is from time of modification embodiment or if it is based on total flight cycles. We agree that clarification is necessary. The inspection threshold for post-modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6063) airplanes is determined from point of embodiment of Modification 11130, and is not based on total flight cycles. We have added this clarification to paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Request To Revise Certain Compliance Times UPS requested that we revise the compliance times in paragraph (l) of the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014) to use the same methodology and consistency used in the compliance time intervals specified in paragraphs (g) through (j) of the proposed AD. UPS stated that it disagrees with using the average flight time compliance methodology and it believes that, in this case, thresholds and repetitive intervals should be based on wing loading differences between passengerconfiguration and freighterconfiguration airplanes. We disagree with the commenter’s request to revise the specified compliance times. The commenter did not provide data to substantiate different airplane utilization and the effect on the identified unsafe condition. The specific values suggested by the commenter are not supported by the fatigue and damage tolerance analysis accomplished by Airbus. The average flight time methodology was supported by EASA. The FAA has confidence that the unsafe condition will be addressed in an appropriate time frame. Under the provisions of paragraph (p)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate different airplane utilization. We have not changed this AD in this regard. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Request To Remove Repair Approval Requirement FedEx acknowledged that repair approvals must specifically ‘‘refer to this AD,’’ but made no specific request. UPS requested that we remove the statement ‘‘For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD’’ from paragraphs (k)(2) and (n) of the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014). UPS stated that the NPRM indicates that this requirement is due to the potential for doing inadequate repairs. UPS asserted that no examples are included in the NPRM to demonstrate where inadequate repairs were made, and that the proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages or other approved EASA documents are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of a mandated Airbus service bulletin. UPS also stated that this repair requirement will result in an increase in AMOC requests to the FAA, and will likely result in delays to other FAA services and activities. We concur with UPS’s request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD. Since 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. In the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 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 a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM 04FER1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD. UPS specifically stated the following in its comments to the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014): ‘‘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.’’ This 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 provided 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. To 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. The 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 FAAapproved. 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. This 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:27 Feb 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive 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. Commenters to an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) 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. Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAHprovided repair specifically refer to this AD from paragraphs (k)(2) and (n) of this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, 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 the AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate. We 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. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including 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 changes: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 5913 • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014). Related Service Information We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections and repair of the wing rear spar. You can find this information at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 0138. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that were required by AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), and are retained in this AD take about 3 workhours per inspection cycle, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 95–24–04 is $255 per product for each inspection cycle. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $18,105 per inspection cycle, or $255 per product for each inspection cycle. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions 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. 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. E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM 04FER1 5914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Regulatory Findings 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations. gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138; 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 800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), and adding the following new AD: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES ■ 2015–02–19 Airbus: Amendment 39–18086. Docket No. FAA–2014–0138; Directorate Identifier 2013–NM–020–AD. (a) Effective Date This AD becomes effective March 11, 2015. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:27 Feb 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 (b) Affected ADs This AD replaces AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995). (c) Applicability This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers. (1) Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 airplanes. (2) Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, and B4–622 airplanes. (3) Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R airplanes. (4) Model A300 F4–605R airplanes. (5) Model A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes. (d) Subject Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings. (e) Reason This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection compliance time and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks and accomplishment of applicable repairs if necessary because of cracking in the rear spar web of the wings between certain ribs due to fatigue-related high shear stress. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue-related cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing. (f) Compliance Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. (g) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B2 Series Airplanes This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with no changes. For Model A300 B2 series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95–24–04), whichever occurs later, perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles. (h) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4– 103 and B4–2C Airplanes This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with no changes. For Model A300 B4–103 and B4–2C airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 19,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95–24–04), whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles. (i) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4– 200 Airplanes This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with no changes. For Model A300 B4–200 airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 17,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95–24–04), whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles. (j) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4– 601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4– 622R, and F4–605R Airplanes This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with no changes. For Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4– 622R, and F4–605R airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 21,600 flight cycles, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,700 flight cycles. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph. (k) Retained Repairs This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with new actions and with specific delegation approval language in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. (1) Before the effective date of this AD, if any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD: Prior to further flight, repair the crack, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, dated August 12, 1994; as applicable; or in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. (2) As of the effective date of this AD, if any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011; as applicable; except if Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011; specifies to contact Airbus for an approved repair, before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM 04FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Airbus’s EASA design organization approval (DOA). (l) New Repetitive Inspections For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) of this AD: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks of the aft face of the wing rear spar web in the area adjacent to the build slot, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD. (1) At the earlier of the applicable times specified in the ‘‘Threshold Inspection’’ column in table 1 through table 4 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies ‘‘(FH)’’ and ‘‘(FC)’’ in the ‘‘Threshold Inspection’’ columns, this AD specifies ‘‘total flight hours’’ and ‘‘total flight cycles.’’ The inspection threshold for airplanes on which Airbus Modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6063) has been done is determined from the point of embodiment of Airbus Modification 11130, and is not based on total flight cycles. (2) At the earlier of the applicable times specified in the ‘‘Grace Period’’ column in table 1 through table 4 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies ‘‘(FH)’’ and ‘‘(FC)’’ in the ‘‘Grace Period’’ columns, this AD specifies ‘‘flight hours’’ and ‘‘flight cycles.’’ Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies a grace period, this AD requires compliance within the specified time after the effective date of this AD. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES (m) Compliance Time Exceptions The repetitive inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD must be accomplished at the earlier of the applicable times specified in the ‘‘Repeat Interval’’ column of table 1 through table 4 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies ‘‘(FC)’’ and ‘‘(FH)’’ in the ‘‘Repeat Interval’’ columns, this AD specifies ‘‘flight hours’’ and ‘‘flight cycles.’’ (n) New Repair If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:27 Feb 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 2011, specifies to contact Airbus for an approved repair: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. Repair of any cracking, as required by this paragraph, does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD. (o) Credit for Previous Actions (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, dated August 12, 1994. (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), (l), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 03, dated October 25, 1999, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD. (p) Other FAA AD Provisions The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International 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 Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116AMOC-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. (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, 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 the EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0013R1, dated February 20, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138-0003. (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference in this AD is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) of this AD. Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 (r) Material Incorporated by Reference (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. (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on effective March 11, 2015. (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. (ii) Reserved. (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 27, 1995 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995). (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994. (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, dated August 12, 1994. (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 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. (6) 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. (7) 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/ibrlocations.html. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 15, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2015–01188 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2014–0344; Directorate Identifier 2014–NM–034–AD; Amendment 39–18095; AD 2015–02–26] RIN 2120–AA64 (q) Related Information PO 00000 5915 Sfmt 4700 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–24– 13 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM 04FER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5911-5915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01188]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0138; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-020-AD; 
Amendment 39-18086; AD 2015-02-19]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95-24-04 for 
all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and 
F4-600R series airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. 
AD 95-24-04 required inspections to detect cracks at the aft spar web 
of the wings, and repair if necessary. This new AD reduces certain 
compliance times, and expands the applicability. This AD was prompted 
by a determination that the inspection threshold and interval must be 
reduced to allow timely detection of cracks and accomplishment of 
applicable repairs, because of cracking in the rear spar web of the 
wings between certain ribs due to fatigue-related high shear stress. We 
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue-related cracking, 
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 11, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 11, 
2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of 
December 27, 1995 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138; or in person at the 
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, 
Airworthiness Office--EAW, 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 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information 
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; 
fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to supersede AD 95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, 
November 27, 1995). AD 95-24-04 applied to all Airbus Model A300 series 
airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes; 
and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model 
A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM

[[Page 5912]]

published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2014 (79 FR 13944).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical 
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA 
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0013R1, dated February 20, 2013 (referred 
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or 
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model A300 series 
airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes; 
and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Wing fatigue tests carried out by Airbus revealed cracks on the 
vertical web of the rear spar between Ribs 1 and 2. Similar cracks 
in the same area were reportedly found by A300 aeroplane operators. 
In all cases, the cracks ran from the tip of the build slot to the 
nearest adjacent bolt hole.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the 
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction 
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued * * * [an 
AD] to require an eddy current inspection of the aft face of the 
wing rear spar in the area adjacent to the build slot on Left Hand 
(LH) and Right Hand (RH) wings.
    Since that [French] AD was issued, a fleet survey and updated 
fatigue and damage tolerance analysis were performed in order to 
substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) 
exercise. The results of the survey and analysis showed that the 
inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely 
detection of cracks and accomplishment of an applicable corrective 
action.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Airbus Service 
Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6059 Revision 04.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the 
requirements of DGAC France AD 1997-375-239(B)R3, which is 
superseded, but redefines the thresholds and intervals. This [EASA] 
AD also expands the applicability to aeroplanes on which Airbus 
modification (mod) 12102 has been embodied in production and to 
aeroplanes on which Airbus SB A300-57-6063 (Airbus mod 11130) has 
been embodied in service.
* * * * *
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138-0003.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 
FR 13944, March 12, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Applicability

    UPS requested confirmation that Model A300 F4-622R airplanes, which 
have Airbus Modification 12102 embodied, do not require inspection per 
the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014).
    We agree to clarify the applicability. Model A300 F4-622R airplanes 
are not included in the applicability of this AD. No change is 
necessary to this AD in this regard.

Requests To Clarify Inspection Threshold

    UPS and FedEx requested clarification of the inspection threshold 
for post-modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6063) 
airplanes. The commenters asked if the inspection threshold is from 
time of modification embodiment or if it is based on total flight 
cycles.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The inspection threshold 
for post-modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6063) 
airplanes is determined from point of embodiment of Modification 11130, 
and is not based on total flight cycles. We have added this 
clarification to paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

Request To Revise Certain Compliance Times

    UPS requested that we revise the compliance times in paragraph (l) 
of the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014) to use the same methodology 
and consistency used in the compliance time intervals specified in 
paragraphs (g) through (j) of the proposed AD. UPS stated that it 
disagrees with using the average flight time compliance methodology and 
it believes that, in this case, thresholds and repetitive intervals 
should be based on wing loading differences between passenger-
configuration and freighter-configuration airplanes.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to revise the specified 
compliance times. The commenter did not provide data to substantiate 
different airplane utilization and the effect on the identified unsafe 
condition. The specific values suggested by the commenter are not 
supported by the fatigue and damage tolerance analysis accomplished by 
Airbus. The average flight time methodology was supported by EASA. The 
FAA has confidence that the unsafe condition will be addressed in an 
appropriate time frame. Under the provisions of paragraph (p)(1) of 
this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative 
method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to 
substantiate different airplane utilization. We have not changed this 
AD in this regard.

Request To Remove Repair Approval Requirement

    FedEx acknowledged that repair approvals must specifically ``refer 
to this AD,'' but made no specific request.
    UPS requested that we remove the statement ``For a repair method to 
be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD'' 
from paragraphs (k)(2) and (n) of the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 
2014). UPS stated that the NPRM indicates that this requirement is due 
to the potential for doing inadequate repairs. UPS asserted that no 
examples are included in the NPRM to demonstrate where inadequate 
repairs were made, and that the proposed wording, being specific to 
repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages or other 
approved EASA documents are acceptable for approving minor deviations 
(corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of a mandated Airbus 
service bulletin. UPS also stated that this repair requirement will 
result in an increase in AMOC requests to the FAA, and will likely 
result in delays to other FAA services and activities.
    We concur with UPS's request to remove from this AD the requirement 
that repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD.
    Since 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.
    In the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 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 a design approval holder (DAH) with State 
of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as

[[Page 5913]]

applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs 
for the proposed AD.
    UPS specifically stated the following in its comments to the NPRM 
(79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014): ``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.''
    This 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 provided 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.
    To 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.
    The 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.
    This 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 Airworthiness 
Directive 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.
    Commenters to an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD 
(78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) 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.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD from paragraphs (k)(2) 
and (n) of this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, 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 the AD. Any such requirements will be adopted 
through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment 
procedures, when appropriate.
    We 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.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including 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 changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; 
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014).

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, 
dated February 22, 2011. The service information describes procedures 
for repetitive inspections and repair of the wing rear spar. You can 
find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for 
and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0138.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions that were required by AD 95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 
(60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), and are retained in this AD take 
about 3 work-hours per inspection cycle, at an average labor rate of 
$85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the 
actions that were required by AD 95-24-04 is $255 per product for each 
inspection cycle.
    We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product 
to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor 
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost 
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $18,105 per inspection cycle, or 
$255 per product for each inspection cycle.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 
cost estimates for the on-condition actions 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.
    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.

[[Page 5914]]

Regulatory Findings

    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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138; 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 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), and 
adding the following new AD:

2015-02-19 Airbus: Amendment 39-18086. Docket No. FAA-2014-0138; 
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-020-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 11, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, 
November 27, 1995).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all 
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and 
B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Model A300 F4-605R airplanes.
    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection 
compliance time and interval must be reduced to allow timely 
detection of cracks and accomplishment of applicable repairs if 
necessary because of cracking in the rear spar web of the wings 
between certain ribs due to fatigue-related high shear stress. We 
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue-related cracking, 
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B2 Series Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with 
no changes. For Model A300 B2 series airplanes: Prior to the 
accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight 
cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-24-04), 
whichever occurs later, perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 
inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in 
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 
12, 1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to 
exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(h) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4-103 and B4-2C Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with 
no changes. For Model A300 B4-103 and B4-2C airplanes: Prior to the 
accumulation of 19,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight 
cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-24-04), 
whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks 
at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.

(i) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4-200 Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD 
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with 
no changes. For Model A300 B4-200 airplanes: Prior to the 
accumulation of 17,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight 
cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-24-04), 
whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks 
at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(j) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, 
B4-605R, B4-622R, and F4-605R Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD 
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with 
no changes. For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, 
B4-622R, and F4-605R airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 21,600 
flight cycles, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the 
aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-6059, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,700 flight cycles. 
Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph (l) 
of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(k) Retained Repairs

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD 
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with 
new actions and with specific delegation approval language in 
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Before the effective date of this AD, if any crack is 
detected during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) through 
(j) of this AD: Prior to further flight, repair the crack, in 
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 
12, 1994; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, dated August 12, 
1994; as applicable; or in accordance with a method approved by the 
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, FAA.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, if any crack is 
detected during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) through 
(j) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack, in 
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 
12, 1994; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, 
dated February 22, 2011; as applicable; except if Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 12, 1994; or Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011; 
specifies to contact Airbus for an approved repair, before further 
flight, repair the crack using a method approved by either the 
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, FAA; the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or

[[Page 5915]]

Airbus's EASA design organization approval (DOA).

(l) New Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) of 
this AD: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1) 
and (l)(2) of this AD, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks 
of the aft face of the wing rear spar web in the area adjacent to 
the build slot, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions 
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 
22, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time 
specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, 
dated February 22, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (m) of 
this AD. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this 
paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (1) At the earlier of the applicable times specified in the 
``Threshold Inspection'' column in table 1 through table 4 of 
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, 
specifies ``(FH)'' and ``(FC)'' in the ``Threshold Inspection'' 
columns, this AD specifies ``total flight hours'' and ``total flight 
cycles.'' The inspection threshold for airplanes on which Airbus 
Modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6063) has been 
done is determined from the point of embodiment of Airbus 
Modification 11130, and is not based on total flight cycles.
    (2) At the earlier of the applicable times specified in the 
``Grace Period'' column in table 1 through table 4 of paragraph 
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, 
Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin 
A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies 
``(FH)'' and ``(FC)'' in the ``Grace Period'' columns, this AD 
specifies ``flight hours'' and ``flight cycles.'' Where Airbus 
Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, 
specifies a grace period, this AD requires compliance within the 
specified time after the effective date of this AD.

(m) Compliance Time Exceptions

    The repetitive inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD 
must be accomplished at the earlier of the applicable times 
specified in the ``Repeat Interval'' column of table 1 through table 
4 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated 
February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, 
Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies ``(FC)'' and 
``(FH)'' in the ``Repeat Interval'' columns, this AD specifies 
``flight hours'' and ``flight cycles.''

(n) New Repair

    If any crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (l) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack, 
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where 
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 
22, 2011, specifies to contact Airbus for an approved repair: Before 
further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by either 
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, FAA; the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Repair of any 
cracking, as required by this paragraph, does not terminate the 
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD.

(o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by 
paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed 
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin 
A300-57-6059, dated August 12, 1994.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by 
paragraphs (j), (k), (l), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were 
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 03, dated October 25, 1999, which is 
not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, 
International 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 Branch, send it 
to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of 
this AD, 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 the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If 
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized 
signature.

(q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information 
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0013R1, dated February 20, 
2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD 
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138-0003.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not 
incorporated by reference in this AD is available at the addresses 
specified in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) of this AD.

(r) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (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.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on 
effective March 11, 2015.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated 
February 22, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on 
December 27, 1995 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 12, 1994.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, dated August 12, 
1994.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 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.
    (6) 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.
    (7) 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 15, 2015.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-01188 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P