This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

30605 

Vol. 80, No. 103 

Friday, May 29, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0756; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–103–AD; Amendment 

39–18167; AD 2015–11–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, 

and Model 720 and 720B series 

airplanes. This AD was prompted by 

reports of cracked midspar fittings on 

the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. 

This AD requires repetitive inspections 

for cracking of the inboard and outboard 

midspar fittings of the nacelle struts and 

of the torque bulkhead, midspar chords, 

drag fitting, and front spar support, and 

doing applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions; replacing the 

midspar fittings; and doing other 

specified actions. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct cracking in the 

midspar fittings of the inboard and 

outboard nacelle struts, which could 

result in the loss of the structural 

integrity of the midspar fitting. This 

condition could cause an unsafe 

separation of the engine and consequent 

wing fire. 

DATES: This AD is effective July 6, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of July 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.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://regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0756. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0756; 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 address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

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 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 

562–627–5239; fax: 562–627–5210; 

email: chandraduth.ramdoss@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B 

series airplanes. The NPRM published 

in the Federal Register on November 13, 

2014 (79 FR 67379). The NPRM was 

prompted by reports of cracked midspar 

fittings on the inboard and outboard 

nacelle struts. The NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the inboard and outboard 

midspar fittings of the nacelle struts and 

of the torque bulkhead, midspar chords, 

drag fitting, and front spar support, and 

doing applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions; replacing the 

midspar fittings; and doing other 

specified actions. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct cracking in the 

midspar fittings of the inboard and 

outboard nacelle struts, which could 

result in the loss of the structural 

integrity of the midspar fitting. This 

condition could cause an unsafe 

separation of the engine and consequent 

wing fire. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (79 FR 67379, 

November 13, 2014) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Extend the Compliance 

Time 

The Air Force Life Cycle Management 

Center (AFLCMC) at Robins Air Force 

Base, and the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology Lincoln Laboratory Flight 

Facility (LLFF), requested that the 

compliance time proposed in the NPRM 

(79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) be 

extended. AFLCMC asked that the grace 

period be extended from 18 months 

after the effective date of the AD to 24 

months after the effective date of the 

AD. This commenter explained that its 

airplanes are scheduled for heavy 

maintenance visits every 24 months, 

and the 18-month grace period for the 

initial actions proposed in the NPRM 

would negatively impact airplane 

availability. 

In addition, the AFLCMC stated that 

there is a low quantity of kits available 

to replace the inboard and outboard 

midspar fittings with new parts, as 

proposed in paragraphs (g) and (h) of 

the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 

2014). This commenter also noted that 

the kits are expensive and have long 

lead times, which could impact 

operators’ schedules. We infer that the 

commenter is requesting that the 

compliance time proposed in the NPRM 

be lengthened to accommodate parts 

availability. 

LLFF’s interpretation of the 

compliance time was that the 

compliance time was related to the date 

of the service bulletin. LLFF commented 

that operators would have a difficult 

time complying with the requirements 

proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, 

November 13, 2014). 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

requests to extend the compliance time. 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
30606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

In developing an appropriate 

compliance time for this action, we 

considered not only the degree of 

urgency associated with addressing the 

subject unsafe condition, but the 

manufacturer’s recommendation for an 

appropriate compliance time, the 

availability of required parts, and the 

practical aspect of installing the 

required modification within an interval 

of time that corresponds to the typical 

scheduled maintenance for the majority 

of affected operators. The supplier of the 

parts kits reports that the lead time for 

kit delivery is 12 months from the date 

an operator places an order. This final 

rule provides operators with a grace 

period of 18 months from the effective 

date of this AD, which we deem 

adequate for acquiring the midspar 

fitting kits, performing the inspection, 

accomplishing any necessary corrective 

actions, and replacing the midspar 

fittings. However, under the provisions 

of paragraph (k) 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 final 

rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify the Unsafe 

Condition 

Boeing requested that the unsafe 

condition statement in the NPRM (79 FR 

67379, November 13, 2014) be revised. 

The NPRM stated ‘‘This condition could 

cause an unsafe separation of the engine 

and consequent wing fire.’’ Boeing 

commented that the word ‘‘consequent’’ 

implied that the end result would 

always be a wing fire. Boeing suggested 

that the wording be changed to ‘‘This 

condition could cause an unsafe 

separation of the engine and potential 

fire.’’ 

We do not agree to revise the unsafe 

condition statement in this final rule. 

Where the unsafe condition states 

‘‘could result’’ it is recognized that the 

loss of structural integrity, unsafe 

separation of the engine, and wing fire 

are possible outcomes in a chain of 

events. Furthermore, we frequently use 

‘‘consequent’’ in unsafe condition 

statements when we state the end-level 

effect of the unsafe condition on an 

airplane. We have not changed this AD 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise the Discussion 

Section of the NPRM (79 FR 67379, 

November 13, 2014) 

Boeing requested that the term limit 

of validity (LOV) in the first paragraph 

of the Discussion section of the 

preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 67379, 

November 13, 2014) be removed 

because it is misleading. Boeing 

commented that the term LOV has 

implications associated with it which 

may not be intended. Boeing suggested 

that the term ‘‘service objective’’ be used 

instead of LOV. 

We agree that the unsafe condition 

addressed by this final rule is not 

related to an airplane reaching its LOV. 

The actions in this final rule are 

necessary to prevent loss of the 

structural integrity of the midspar fitting 

as the result of stress corrosion and 

fatigue at the lug and fatigue at the 

tangs. These actions do not directly 

support an airplane reaching its LOV. 

The Discussion section from the 

preamble of an NPRM is not repeated in 

a final rule so no change is necessary. 

We have revised paragraph (e) of this 

AD by removing the statement ‘‘This AD 

was prompted by certain mandated 

programs intended to support the 

airplane reaching its limit of validity 

(LOV) of the engineering data that 

support the established structural 

maintenance program.’’ We replaced 

that statement with ‘‘This AD was 

prompted by reports of cracked midspar 

fittings on the inboard and outboard 

nacelle struts.’’ 

Request To Clarify Replacement 

Requirements 

Rafael Veas stated that two midspar 

fittings had already been replaced on an 

airplane at his facility. This commenter 

asked if all four midspar fittings have to 

be replaced, or only the two remaining 

midspar fittings that have not yet been 

replaced. 

We agree to clarify the replacement 

requirements of this final rule. 

Paragraph (f) of this AD states ‘‘Comply 

with this AD within the compliance 

times specified, unless already done.’’ 

The two midspar fittings that have 

already been replaced do not have to be 

replaced again if they have been 

replaced in accordance with the 

procedures mandated by this AD. For 

these two midspar fittings the repetitive 

inspection and replacement intervals 

should be calculated from the most 

recent midspar fitting replacement. We 

have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise the Cost Estimate 

The AFLCMC mentioned that the cost 

and labor estimates presented in the 

preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 67379, 

November 13, 2014) are significantly 

lower than the actual costs. The 

commenter stated that accomplishment 

of the actions proposed in the NPRM 

would require a set of ready-forinstallation engine pylons, removal of 

all four engines, inspections, and 

reassembly, and the estimated cost 

would be over $1,000,000 per airplane. 

We infer that the commenter requested 

that the estimated costs be revised. 

After considering the data presented 

by the commenter, we agree that the 

cost and labor estimates referenced in 

the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 

2014) are significantly lower than the 

actual costs. The cost estimate in the 

NPRM was for replacement of the 

midspar fitting for one engine, and the 

proposed requirement in the NPRM was 

for replacement of the midspar fitting 

for all four engines. The estimated cost 

information in this final rule has been 

revised to indicate this higher amount. 

We disagree, however, with the 

commenter’s estimate that the cost will 

be over $1,000,000 per airplane. Our 

cost estimate includes the work hours 

and parts cost for the required midspar 

fitting replacements, but does not 

include costs associated with 

maintenance scheduling or a set of 

ready-for-installation engine pylons. 

Conclusion 

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 (79 FR 

67379, November 13, 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 67379, 

November 13, 2014). 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service 

Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated 

February 7, 2014. The service 

information describes procedures for 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

inboard and outboard midspar fittings of 

the nacelle struts and of the torque 

bulkhead, midspar chords, drag fitting, 

and front spar support, and related 

investigative and corrective actions; 

replacing the midspar fittings; and 

doing other specified actions. 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 of 

this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 12 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 30607 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspections ............ 214 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$18,190 per pylon per inspection 

cycle.

$0 ..................... $72,760 (4 pylons per inspection cycle) $873,120 per inspection cycle. 

Replacement of 

midspar fitting.

18 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,530 

per pylon.

Up to $7,867 ..... Up to $37,588 (1 fitting per pylon, 4 pylons total).Up to $451,056. 

Mid-interval inspections.107 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$9,095 per pylon per inspection cycle.

$0 ..................... $36,380 (4 pylons per inspection cycle) $436,560 per inspection cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any additional inspections that would 

be required based on the results of the 

inspections. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need these inspections: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Inspections ................ Up to 21 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,785 ............................................................... $0 $1,785 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition corrective 

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. 

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) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

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. 

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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2015–11–04 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–18167; Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0756; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–103–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective July 6, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 707–100 long body, –200, 

–100B long body, and –100B short body 

series airplanes; Model 707–300, –300B, 

–300C, and –400 series airplanes; and Model 

720 and 720B series airplanes; certificated in 

any category. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracked midspar fittings on the inboard and 

outboard nacelle struts. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct cracking in the 

midspar fittings of the inboard and outboard 

nacelle struts, which could result in the loss 

of the structural integrity of the midspar 

fitting. This condition could cause an unsafe 

separation of the engine and consequent 

wing fire. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspections of Nacelle Struts and 

Surrounding Structure and Replacement of 

Inboard and Outboard Midspar Fittings 

At the applicable time specified in table 2 

or table 3 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ 

of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, 

Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as 

required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Do 

the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1), 

(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance 

with part 2 or part 3, as applicable, of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 

Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, 

dated February 7, 2014, except as required by 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
30608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Before further 

flight, do all applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions, replace the inboard 

and outboard midspar fittings with new 

parts, and do other specified actions 

(including installing new bushings and 

oversize fasteners), in accordance with part 2 

or part 3, as applicable, of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 

Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, 

dated February 7, 2014, except as required by 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Repeat the 

inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1), 

(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD thereafter at the 

applicable intervals specified in table 2 or 

table 3 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, 

Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as 

required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. 

(1) A detailed inspection and a high 

frequency eddy current inspection (HFEC) for 

cracks in the inboard and outboard midspar 

fittings of the nacelle struts. 

(2) Open hole HFEC inspections for cracks 

in the torque bulkhead, midspar chords, drag 

fitting, and front spar support. 

(3) A surface HFEC inspection of the front 

spar support for cracks. 

(h) Mid-Interval Inspections and 

Replacement of Nacelle Strut Midspar 

Fittings 

At the applicable time specified in table 4 

or 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, 

Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014: Do the 

inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1), 

(h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, in accordance 

with part 4 or part 5, as applicable, of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 

Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, 

dated February 7, 2014, except as required by 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable 

related investigative, corrective, and other 

specified actions (including installing new 

bushings and oversize fasteners) before 

further flight. Repeat the inspections required 

by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this 

AD thereafter at the applicable intervals 

specified in table 4 or 5 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 707 Alert Service 

Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 

2014. The threshold for the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1), 

(h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD is 1,500 flight 

cycles or 48 months, whichever occurs first, 

since the most recent midspar fitting 

replacement. 

(1) A detailed inspection and a surface 

HFEC inspection for cracks in the inboard 

and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle 

struts. 

(2) An open hole HFEC inspection for 

cracks in the drag fitting and front spar 

support. 

(3) A surface HFEC inspection for cracks in 

the front spar support. 

(i) Exceptions to Service Information 

Specifications 

(1) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service 

Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 

2014, specifies a compliance time ‘‘after the 

Revision 6 date of this service bulletin,’’ this 

AD requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(2) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service 

Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 

2014, specifies to contact Boeing for 

appropriate action: Do corrective actions 

before further flight using a method approved 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(j) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits, as described in 

Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 

and 21.199), are not allowed. 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 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 manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-LAACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) 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. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(l) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 

FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; 

phone: 562–627–5239; fax: 562–627–5210; 

email: chandraduth.ramdoss@faa.gov. 

(m) 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 the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin 

A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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. 

(4) 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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20, 

2015. 

John P. Piccola, Jr., 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12858 Filed 5–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0584; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–092–AD; Amendment 

39–18158; AD 2015–10–03] 

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) 2014–09– 

05, for certain Airbus Model A330–200 

and –300 series airplanes, and Model 

A340–200 and –300 series airplanes. AD 

2014–09–05 required repetitive 

inspections of certain sidestay upper 

cardan pins of the main landing gear 

(MLG) and associated nuts and retainer 

assemblies, and pin replacement if 

necessary. This AD was prompted by a 

determination that a previously optional 

measurement is necessary to address the 

identified unsafe condition. This new 

AD continues to require a detailed 

inspection for visible chrome of each 

affected MLG sidestay upper cardan pin, 

associated nuts, and retainer assembly, 

and pin replacement if needed, and 

adds new requirements for measuring 

cardan pin clearance dimensions (gap 

check), doing corrective actions, and 

reporting all findings. We are issuing 

this AD to detect and correct migration 

of the sidestay upper cardan pin, which 

could result in disconnection of the 

sidestay upper arm from the airplane 

structure, and could result in a landing 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES