Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 69179

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–275–AD; Amendment

39–10942; AD 98–26–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A310 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Airbus Model A310

series airplanes, that requires various

inspections to detect fatigue cracks at

certain locations on the fuselage,

horizontal stabilizer, and wings and tail,

and repair or modification, if necessary;

and installation of doublers. This

amendment also adds new inspections

and reduces certain inspection intervals.

This amendment is prompted by results

of full-scale fatigue testing of a Model

A310 series airplane, which revealed

fatigue cracks at those locations. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent reduced structural

integrity of the fuselage, horizontal

stabilizer, and wings.

DATES: Effective January 20, 1999.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 20,

1999.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all Airbus Model

A310 series airplanes was published as

a supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on July 21, 1998 (63 FR 39045).

That supplemental NPRM proposed to

require various inspections to detect

fatigue cracks at certain locations on the

fuselage, horizontal stabilizer, and

wings and tail, and repair or

modification, if necessary; and

installation of doublers. That

supplemental NPRM also proposed to

add new inspections and reduce certain

inspection intervals.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

Request to Withdraw AD

The ATA, on behalf of one of its

members, questions the need for an AD,

and requests a meeting with the FAA to

develop an alternative that would

provide a program more beneficial to

cost and safety. The commenter

indicates that, while manufacturers

routinely solicit comments from affected

operators for aging aircraft issues,

nothing in the proposal suggests that its

requirements have been well

coordinated with operators before being

advised of pending rulemaking.

Additionally, the commenter

questions whether each of the 16

referenced service bulletins individually

satisfies the requirement of part 39

(‘‘Airworthiness Directives’’) of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) that an unsafe condition exists.

As an example, the commenter points

out that, in describing the reason for

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2014,

Airbus states that the existence of a

‘‘crack does not affect aircraft

safety. . . .’’

The FAA infers that the commenter

requests the AD be withdrawn. The

FAA does not concur with that request.

Each of the 16 service bulletins cited in

the original Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), as well as the 2

additional service bulletins included in

this Supplemental NPRM, address

fatigue cracking in the wing, fuselage,

and empennage structure of the

airplane. As specified in the Airbus

Structural Repair Manual (SRM), the

wing, fuselage, and empennage

structure is primary structure that

contributes significantly to carrying

flight, ground, and pressurization loads.

As is the case with the structure of

many commercial airplanes, failure of a

single part is not likely to be

catastrophic, and safe flight could

continue for some time with any single

part being cracked or broken. However,

if the parts specified in the service

bulletins cited in this AD are cracked or

failed, the residual strength of the

surrounding aircraft structure would be

reduced; this could cause failure of

structural members, or could initiate or

accelerate cracking of other structural

members. Such failure clearly poses an

unsafe condition. Issuance of an AD

(without further delay) is the

appropriate vehicle by which unsafe

conditions are corrected.

Request for Alternative to Issuance of

AD

One ATA member suggests that, as an

alternative to issuance of an AD,

operators’ maintenance programs could

be revised or adjusted to accomplish the

inspection requirements of the proposed

AD in line with scheduled maintenance

visits. The commenter states that the

A310 Maintenance Planning Document

(MPD), one of the primary documents

used by operators, addresses all areas

covered by the proposed AD. The

commenter adds that coordinating

revisions to the inspection intervals

specified in the MPD and corresponding

service bulletins is more appropriate

than issuing an AD. The commenter

believes that this alternative would be

less costly, would provide better control

of early detection of damage, and would

provide a better level of safety. The

commenter states that no operator has

yet found damage in the proposed

inspection areas; however, the

commenter submits no data to support

its contention.

The FAA does not concur that

revising the MPD is more appropriate

than issuing an AD. Accomplishment of

the requirements detailed in the service

bulletins is considered necessary, since

those documents provide detailed

inspection information necessary to

address the unsafe condition that may

not be contained in the MPD.

Additionally, the FAA has determined

that solely relying on a revision of the

maintenance document will not provide

the same level of safety, since this

document is not mandatory and, in any

event, could be subsequently revised or

adjusted without FAA approval. No

change to the final rule is necessary in

this regard.

Clarification of Development of

Compliance Thresholds

One commenter indicates that it will

request a review of the applicable

service bulletins by the manufacturer to

assure that the stated compliance

thresholds have a sound technical basis.
69180 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

The commenter requests that the FAA

coordinate this review with Airbus so

that the AD is consistent with any

changes being considered by Airbus.

The commenter adds that, if necessary,

the comment period should be extended

so that coordination among Airbus,

affected operators, and the FAA can be

accomplished.

Another commenter expresses

concern that the initial inspection

thresholds specified in the proposal do

not coincide with test findings, and

questions how the criteria were

developed. For example, the commenter

objects to one threshold specified in the

proposal as 12,000 flight cycles (FC)

(with repetitive intervals of 5,000 FC)

when cracking was not detected until

90,000 FC. The commenter indicates

that, given the inspection thresholds

specified in the proposal, operators will

be forced to ground aircraft for special

inspection visits, which impacts

revenue and other operational

parameters. The commenter believes

that adjustments in operators’ FAAapproved maintenance programs to

achieve the required inspections and to

maintain a level of safety will enhance

the effectiveness of such programs.

The FAA finds that clarification is

necessary concerning development of

the compliance times specified in this

AD. The inspection thresholds are based

on test data, and adjustment to the

thresholds to correspond with operators’

various maintenance programs is not

always possible. The relationship

between the specified inspection

threshold and the test data is based on

a number of variables. In the example

identified by the commenter, the crack

was detected after 90,000 FC, and an

inspection threshold of 12,000 FC was

established. This reduction in flight

cycles from the time that the crack was

detected during testing to the inspection

threshold established, is necessary to

account for variations in operational

usage, crack initiation and growth,

inspection techniques, and human

operational error. Additionally, the

nature of fatigue testing requires that a

‘‘scatter’’ factor be applied to the data.

This scatter factor accounts for the

number of specimens tested, material

property variations, geometry/

configuration variations, environmental

effects, and loading variations.

Based on these factors, the FAA has

determined that the inspection

thresholds established by Airbus, and

approved by the DGAC, are acceptable

to maintain the operational safety of

these airplanes. No change to this final

rule is necessary.

Directions of Cracking

One commenter, Airbus, requests that

the FAA clarify the definitions of

directions of cracking. Airbus references

a sentence that appears in the preamble

to the original NPRM, which reads as

follows: ‘‘Operators should note that

although the French AD specifies that

the airplane may be operated for 500

landings prior to repair of any crack that

extends rearward, paragraph (h)(2)(iii)

of this proposed AD would require that

such cracking be repaired prior to

further flight.’’ Airbus states that the

‘‘forward’’ crack propagates in the

direction of the skin edge, and upon

reaching the skin edge, the crack will

not grow further; therefore, Airbus

concludes that repair can be deferred for

500 flights. Airbus states that a

‘‘rearward’’ crack would propagate in

the direction of the front spar where the

skin thickness increases and crack

propagation slows down; therefore,

repair of such rearward cracking also

can be deferred for 500 flights.

The FAA does not concur. It is the

FAA’s policy to require repair of known

cracks prior to further flight, except in

certain cases of unusual need. This

policy is based on the fact that such

damaged airplanes do not conform to

the FAA-certificated type design and,

therefore, are not airworthy until a

properly approved repair is

incorporated. Therefore, since the FAA

is unaware of any unusual need for

repair deferral in this case, it has

determined that, due to the safety

implications and consequences

associated with such cracking, any

subject wing skin that is found to be

cracked must be repaired prior to

further flight. No change to the final rule

is necessary.

Request To Revise Cost Impact

Information

The ATA, on behalf of one of its

members, requests that the FAA revise

the cost impact information presented

in the proposed AD. The ATA believes

that the actual cost for accomplishment

of the proposed requirements is

considerably greater than that specified

in the proposed AD. One ATA member

justifies this request by presenting its

own cost estimate.

The ATA adds that the ‘‘boilerplate’’

paragraph contained in the proposed

AD that indicates why a full cost-benefit

analysis has not been accomplished (or

is needed) is ‘‘particularly offensive’’ to

those affected. One ATA member

believes that the paragraph is contrary

to all established procedures of a

rulemaking process, and the decision to

issue an AD is being based on

inaccurate and/or limited data. The

ATA concludes that for the FAA to state

that the level of safety has been

determined previously to be cost

beneficial discourages the submittal of

any meaningful comments concerning

the cost impact of the proposed AD. The

ATA states that when operators submit

comments to a docket on the cost of AD

compliance, those operators are doing

so to support the contention that equally

safe alternative measures should be

considered.

The FAA does not concur that the

cost impact information should be

revised based on the commenter’s

justification. (However, it should be

noted that the cost impact information

presented in this AD was revised in the

supplemental NPRM to reflect updated

information presented in the latest

service bulletin revisions.)

The cost impact information

represents the FAA’s best estimate as to

the number of work hours that will be

necessary to accomplish the

requirements of the AD. The FAA

arrived at this estimate using cost

information obtained from the airframe

manufacturer. The FAA recognizes that

actual costs may vary depending upon

the operation of each individual airline

and the degree to which the airplane has

been opened up for access for other

maintenance or inspection actions.

The ‘‘boilerplate’’ paragraph

referenced by the ATA and one of its

members is included in especially

expensive AD’s, not to discourage

comments regarding cost, but simply to

explain why the FAA does not prepare

full cost-benefit analyses. Cost

effectiveness of AD’s is always a

primary issue for the FAA in the

development of AD’s. The FAA

routinely adopts compliance times and

methods that are designed to minimize

the cost impact on operators. Thus, the

FAA’s approach is entirely consistent

with Executive Order 12866 in that it

complies fully with the philosophy and

principles set forth in Section 1 of the

executive order. It should be noted that

AD’s were explicitly exempted from the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) coordination process described

in Section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

The explanation of why full cost-benefit

analyses are not required for AD’s is

consistent with this exemption.

As for the ATA’s conclusion that the

FAA is discouraging meaningful

comments concerning cost by

previously determining the level of

safety to be cost beneficial, the FAA has

not stated that a cost-benefit analysis

has already been accomplished for AD’s.

Rather, the paragraph states that the

purpose of the AD is to restore the level
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 69181

of safety to that which has already been

determined to be cost-effective. Under

these circumstances, as stated in the

paragraph, a full cost-benefit analysis

would be redundant and unnecessary.

The purpose of AD’s is distinctly

different from the purpose of most other

FAA regulations, which is to improve

the level of safety established by the

existing regulations. Under these

circumstances, it is appropriate to

conduct a cost-benefit analysis to

determine whether the improvement in

safety is cost-effective.

The FAA does not discourage

comments concerning costs; to the

contrary, every AD includes a provision

specifically requesting comments on the

economic aspects of the AD. Given the

volume of such comments from

operators, there does not appear to be

any misunderstanding on the part of

most operators about the

appropriateness of submitting such

comments.

Finally, concerning the ATA’s

statement that operators submit

comments concerning cost to support

their contention that equally safe

alternative measures should be

considered, if a commenter proposes a

less costly alternative that achieves an

acceptable level of safety, the FAA may

concur with the comment and revise the

AD accordingly. On the other hand, if a

commenter simply requests a change

without justifying it or providing data to

substantiate it, the FAA may not concur.

However, every AD contains a provision

allowing operators to comply with the

AD using an alternative method of

compliance (or extension of compliance

time) approved by the FAA.

Explanation of Change Made to This

Final Rule

Paragraph (h) of the final rule has

been revised to cite Revision 2 of Airbus

Service Bulletin A310–57–2002, dated

January 4, 1996, as an additional source

of service information for

accomplishment of the actions specified

in that paragraph. Revision 2 contains

no substantive differences from

Revision 1 of the service bulletin, which

was cited as the appropriate source of

service information in the supplemental

NPRM.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the change noted above,

the FAA has determined that air safety

and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the change

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 36 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD. Approximate work hours to

accomplish the required actions and

costs for required parts are listed in the

following table. The average labor rate is

$60 per work hour.

A310 service bulletin No. Work hours Parts cost/airplane Cost/airplane No. of U.S.

airplanes

Number modified

53–2014 ................................................................................ 78 $12,121 $16,801 7 5

53–2016 ................................................................................ 317 14,282 33,302 12 5

53–2054 ................................................................................ 11 N/A 660 8 0

53–2057 ................................................................................ 12 N/A 720 13 0

53–2059 ................................................................................ 13 N/A 780 17 0

53–2074 ................................................................................ 232 N/A 13,920 17 0

55–2002 ................................................................................ 715 34,100 77,000 7 6

55–2004 ................................................................................ 16 N/A 960 11 0

57–2002 ................................................................................ 8 N/A 480 6 0

57–2006 ................................................................................ 52 N/A 3,120 2 0

57–2032 ................................................................................ 5 N/A 300 6 0

57–2037 ................................................................................ 2 N/A 120 6 0

57–2039 ................................................................................ 3 N/A 180 15 0

57–2046 ................................................................................ 172 N/A 10,320 33 0

57–2047 ................................................................................ 82 N/A 4,920 24 0

57–2050 ................................................................................ 24 N/A 1,440 20 0

57–2064 ................................................................................ 8 N/A 480 26 0

57–2038 ................................................................................ 6 N/A 360 0 0

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $1,845,591. However, the FAA has

been advised that a certain number of

U.S.-registered airplanes already have

been modified in accordance with the

requirements of this AD. (The numbers

of U.S.-registered airplanes that have

already been modified are listed under

the heading, ‘‘Number Modified,’’ in the

table above.) Therefore, the future

economic cost impact of this rule on

U.S. operators is now $1,133,076.

The FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, prudent

operators would accomplish the

required actions even if they were not

required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this AD. As a

matter of law, in order to be airworthy,

an aircraft must conform to its type

design and be in a condition for safe

operation. The type design is approved

only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

AD, makes a finding of an unsafe

condition, this means that the original

cost-beneficial level of safety is no

longer being achieved and that the

required actions are necessary to restore

that level of safety. Because this level of

safety has already been determined to be

cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit

analysis for this AD would be redundant

and unnecessary.
69182 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–26–01 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–10942. Docket 95–NM–275–AD.

Applicability: All Model A310 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (u) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent reduced structural integrity of

the fuselage, horizontal stabilizer, and wings,

accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2014, Revision 5, dated

June 9, 1992, as revised by Service Bulletin

Change Notices 5.A., dated September 29,

1992, and 5.B., dated February 5, 1996: Prior

to the accumulation of 12,000 total flight

cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform an eddy current inspection to

detect cracks on the fuselage center section

doublers at frame 40, and install new

doublers, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2014, Revision 5, dated

June 9, 1992, as revised by Service Bulletin

Change Notices 5.A., dated September 29,

1992, and 5.B., dated February 5, 1996.

Except as provided by paragraph (t) of this

AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, perform follow-on corrective

actions, as applicable, in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(b) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2016, Revision 5, dated

December 7, 1992: Prior to the accumulation

of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later, perform a

defectoscope or rototest inspection to detect

cracks in the area of frame 47 and frame 54,

and install new doublers, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2016,

Revision 5, dated December 7, 1992. Except

as provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if

any discrepancy is found, prior to further

flight, perform follow-on corrective actions,

as applicable, in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(c) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2054, Revision 2, dated

May 22, 1990: Prior to the accumulation of

12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles,

perform a visual inspection to detect cracks

on frame 46 between the left- and right-hand

sides of stringers 21 and 22 on the forward

and aft faces in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A310–53–2054, Revision 2,

dated May 22, 1990. If any crack is found,

prior to further flight, repair in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2054,

Revision 2, dated May 22, 1990.

(1) Accomplishment of the repair required

by paragraph (c) of this AD, or modification

of the reinforcement angle runout in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–53–2019, Revision 2, dated May 22,

1990, terminates the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.

(2) Accomplishment of paragraph (c) of

this AD terminates the requirements of AD

91–13–01, amendment 39–7032.

(d) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2057, Revision 1, dated

April 30, 1992: Perform a visual inspection

to detect cracks at the T-section connecting

frame 50A to the beam between the left- and

right-hand sides of frames 50 and 51, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–53–2057, Revision 1, dated April 30,

1992. Perform the inspection at the time

specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this

AD, as applicable. If any crack is found, prior

to further flight, accomplish Airbus

Modifications No. 4853 and No. 5273 in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–53–2057, Revision 1, dated April 30,

1992. Accomplishment of these

modifications terminates the requirements of

this paragraph.

(1) For the airplane having manufacturer’s

serial number (MSN) 191: Prior to the

accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000

flight cycles.

(2) For airplanes other than the airplane

identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD:

Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 6,000 flight cycles.

(e) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2059, Revision 1, dated

January 4, 1996: Perform a visual inspection

to detect cracks in the lower milled side

panel at the lap joint with the upper side

panel at frame 47 and stringer 22, left- and

right-hand sides, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A310–53–2059, Revision 1,

dated January 4, 1996. Perform the inspection

at the time specified in paragraph (e)(1) or

(e)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Except as

provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if any

crack is found, prior to further flight, repair

in accordance with the service bulletin.

Thereafter, repeat the inspections at intervals

not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles, or

accomplish Airbus Modification 5997

(Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2058).

Accomplishment of either the repair or

Airbus Modification 5997 constitutes

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections required by this paragraph.

(1) For Model A310–200 series airplanes,

accomplish the inspection at the time

specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (e)(1)(ii) of

this AD, as applicable.

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated less

than 20,000 total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Prior to the

accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or

within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated

20,000 or more total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Within 1,000 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD.

(2) For Model A310–300 series airplanes,

accomplish the inspection at the time

specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of

this AD, as applicable.

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated less

than 19,700 total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Prior to the

accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or

within 1,700 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 69183

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated

19,700 or more total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Within 850 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD.

(f) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–55–2002, Revision 4, dated

April 28, 1989: Prior to the accumulation of

12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later, perform an eddy

current inspection to detect cracks on the

upper integral part adjacent to the rear attach

fittings on the horizontal stabilizer, and

modify the horizontal stabilizer, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–55–2002, Revision 4, dated April 28,

1989. Except as provided by paragraph (t) of

this AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, perform follow-on corrective

actions, as applicable, in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(g) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–55–2004, Revision 2, dated

February 7, 1991: Perform a high frequency

eddy current rototest inspection to detect

cracks at specified fastener holes in the top

skin chordwise splice along the contour of

the steel doubler between ribs 3 and 4 on the

left- and right-hand center and side boxes on

the horizontal stabilizer in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–55–2004,

Revision 2, dated February 7, 1991, at the

time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of

this AD, as applicable. Except as provided by

paragraph (t) of this AD, if any discrepancy

is found, prior to further flight, perform

follow-on corrective actions, as applicable, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(1) For airplanes on which Airbus

Modification A310–4933 (Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–55–2002) was accomplished

prior to the accumulation of 6,000 total flight

cycles on the airplane; or for airplanes having

MSN 311 through 414 inclusive, on which

Airbus Modification A310–4933 was

accomplished during production: Prior to the

accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000

flight cycles.

(2) For airplanes on which Airbus

Modification A310–4933 (Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–55–2002) was accomplished

upon or after the accumulation of 6,000 total

flight cycles: Prior to the accumulation of

12,000 flight cycles since the modification, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000

flight cycles.

(h) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2002, Revision 2, dated

January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation of

12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles;

perform a detailed visual inspection to detect

cracks in the external surface of the wing

lower skin around the landing access panel

holes of the leading edge, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–2002,

Revision 1, dated July 2, 1992; or Revision 2,

dated January 4, 1996. If any discrepancy is

found, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by

either the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, or the Direction Generale de

l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated

agent). Accomplishment of Airbus

Modification 5101 (Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–57–2003) terminates the repetitive

inspection requirements of paragraph (h) of

this AD.

(i) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2006, Revision 3, dated

May 2, 1996: Prior to the accumulation of

6,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later; and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles;

perform an eddy current inspection to detect

cracks in the holes around the overwing

refueling aperture at ribs 13–14, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–57–2006, Revision 3, dated May 2,

1996. Except as provided by paragraph (t) of

this AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, perform follow-on corrective

actions, as applicable, in accordance with the

service bulletin. Accomplishment of Airbus

Modification 5891H5128 (Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2020) terminates the

repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraph (i) of this AD.

(j) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2032, Revision 3, dated

January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation of

12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles;

perform a detailed visual inspection to detect

cracks around the bolts in the wing top skin

upper surface of the front spar between rib

7 and rib 28, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A310–57–2032, Revision 3,

dated January 4, 1996. If any discrepancy is

found, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, or

the DGAC (or its delegated agent).

Accomplishment of Airbus Modification

5026H0878 (Airbus Service Bulletin A310–

57–2005) terminates the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.

(k) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2037, Revision 3, dated

January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation of

12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles;

perform a high frequency eddy current

inspection to detect cracks around the

attachment bolt heads for the shroud panel

landing on the bottom skin aft of the rear

spar, forward of access door 575CB/675CB, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–57–2037, Revision 3, dated January 4,

1996. If any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, or the

DGAC (or its delegated agent).

Accomplishment of Airbus Modification

5106H0894 (Airbus Service Bulletin A310–

57–2004) terminates the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (k) of this AD.

(l) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2039, dated

September 24, 1990: Perform either an

eddy current or visual inspection to detect

cracks on the left and right vertical posts,

numbers 1 through 5 inclusive, in the wing

center box at frame 40/41, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–2039,

dated September 24, 1990. Perform the

inspection at the time specified in paragraph

(l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

Except as provided by paragraph (t) of this

AD, if any crack is found, prior to further

flight, accomplish the modification specified

in Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–2041,

dated September 24, 1990, in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–2039,

dated September 24, 1990.

(1) For airplanes on which Airbus

Modification 7541/S7973 (reference Airbus

Service Bulletin A310–57–2041) has not been

accomplished: Inspect prior to the

accumulation of 21,000 total flight cycles, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,200

flight cycles (for a visual inspection), or 7,500

flight cycles (for an eddy current inspection).

(2) For airplanes on which Airbus

Modification 7541/S7973 (reference Airbus

Service Bulletin A310–57–2041) has been

accomplished: Inspect at the time specified

in the graph contained in NOTE 1 of

paragraph 1.A.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–57–2039, dated September 24, 1990, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000

flight cycles (for a visual inspection), or 8,600

flight cycles (for an eddy current inspection).

(m) For Model A310–200 series airplanes

on which Airbus Modification 7925H1113

has not been accomplished: Prior to the

accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect

cracks in certain bolt holes where the main

landing gear forward pick-up fitting is

attached to the rear spar, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–2046,

Revision 4, dated October 16, 1996

(including Appendix 1, Revision 3, dated

October 17, 1995), as revised by Service

Bulletin Change Notice 4A, dated October 16,

1996. Accomplishment of paragraph (m) of

this AD terminates the requirements of AD

91–06–18, amendment 39–6940.

(1) If no crack is found, accomplish either

paragraph (m)(1)(i) or (m)(1)(ii) of this AD in

accordance with the service bulletin at the

time specified in that paragraph.

(i) Repeat the inspection of the bolt/stud

holes thereafter at intervals not to exceed

3,500 flight cycles. Or

(ii) Prior to further flight, accomplish

Airbus Modification 7925H1113; and, prior

to the accumulation of 18,000 flight cycles

after accomplishment of Airbus Modification

7925H1113, perform the inspection required

by paragraph (m) of this AD. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 11,600 flight cycles.

Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–

2046, Revision 4, dated October 16, 1996

(including Appendix 1, Revision 3, dated

October 17, 1995), as revised by Service

Bulletin Change Notice 4A, dated October 16,
69184 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1996, references Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–57–2049 and Repair Instruction R571–

49305 as additional sources of service

information for accomplishment of Airbus

Modification 7925H1113.

(2) If any crack is found, prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, or the DGAC (or its

delegated agent).

(n) For Model A310–300 series airplanes

on which Airbus Modification 7925H1113

has not been accomplished: Prior to the

accumulation of 9,000 flight cycles, or within

1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later, perform an

ultrasonic inspection to detect cracks in

certain bolt holes where the main landing

gear forward pick-up fitting is attached to the

rear spar, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2046, Revision 4, dated

October 16, 1996 (including Appendix 1,

Revision 3, dated October 17, 1995), as

revised by Service Bulletin Change Notice

4A, dated October 16, 1996. Accomplishment

of paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the

requirements of AD 91–06–18, amendment

39–6940.

(1) If no crack is found, accomplish either

paragraph (n)(1)(i) or (n)(1)(ii) of this AD in

accordance with the service bulletin at the

time specified in that paragraph.

(i) Repeat the inspection of the bolt/stud

holes thereafter at intervals not to exceed

3,100 flight cycles. Or

(ii) Prior to further flight, accomplish

Airbus Modification 7925H1113; and, prior

to the accumulation of 18,000 flight cycles

after accomplishment of Airbus Modification

7925H1113, perform the inspection required

by paragraph (n) of this AD. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 11,600 flight cycles.

Note 3: Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–

2046, Revision 4, dated October 16, 1996

(including Appendix 1, Revision 3, dated

October 17, 1995), as revised by Service

Bulletin Change Notice 4A, dated October 16,

1996, references Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–57–2049 and Repair Instruction R571–

49305 as additional sources of service

information for accomplishment of Airbus

Modification 7925H1113.

(2) If any crack is found, prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, or the DGAC (or its

delegated agent).

(o) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2047, Revision 2, dated

January 22, 1997: Perform a rotating probe

inspection to detect cracks in the fastener

holes on the left- and right-hand sides of the

rear spar internal angle and tee fitting, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–57–2047, Revision 2, dated January 22,

1997, at the applicable time specified in

NOTE 2 of paragraph 1.A.(2) of the service

bulletin, or within 1,000 flight cycles after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later; and thereafter at the intervals

specified in NOTE 2 of paragraph 1.A.(2) of

the service bulletin. Except as provided by

paragraph (t) of this AD, if any discrepancy

is found, prior to further flight, perform

follow-on corrective actions in accordance

with the service bulletin.

(p) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2050, dated April 23,

1990, as revised by Service Bulletin Change

Notices 0.A., dated September 29, 1992, and

0.B., dated January 6, 1995: Perform a visual

or rotating probe inspection to detect cracks

in the drain holes on the lower skin panel in

the center wing box between frames 42 and

46, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2050, dated April 23,

1990, as revised by Service Bulletin Change

Notices 0.A., dated September 29, 1992, and

0.B., dated January 6, 1995, at the applicable

time specified in NOTE 1 of paragraph

1.A.(2) of the service bulletin, or within 1,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed those specified in

NOTE 1 of paragraph 1.A.(2) of the service

bulletin. Except as provided by paragraph (t)

of this AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior

to further flight, perform follow-on corrective

actions in accordance with the service

bulletin. Accomplishment of Airbus

Modification number 6130S6815 (Airbus

Service Bulletin A310–57–2048), constitutes

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections required by paragraph (p) of this

AD.

(q) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–53–2074, Revision 1, dated

February 20, 1995: Perform visual and eddy

current inspections to detect damaged

sealant, corrosion, and cracks in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2074,

Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995.

Accomplish these requirements at the

applicable time specified in Table 2 of

paragraph 1.C.(4) of the service bulletin, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed those

specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.C.(4) of

the service bulletin, as applicable. Except as

provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if any

discrepancy is found, prior to further flight,

perform follow-on corrective actions in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(r) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2064, dated August 24,

1995: Perform an eddy current inspection to

detect cracks of the upper corner angle fitting

and the vertical tee fitting at left and right

frame 40, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2064, dated August 24,

1995. Perform the inspection at the time

specified in paragraph (r)(1) or (r)(2) of this

AD, as applicable. Except as provided by

paragraph (t) of this AD, if any crack is

found, prior to further flight, perform

corrective actions in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(1) For Model A310–200 series airplanes:

Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total

flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 11,000 flight cycles.

(2) For Model A310–300 series airplanes:

Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total

flight cycles, or within 1,700 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 7,700 flight cycles.

(s) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–57–2038, Revision 2, dated

January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation of

12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,500

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later, perform a high

frequency eddy current (HFEC) or X-ray

inspection to detect cracking of the stringer

runouts inboard and outboard of rib 14 at

stringers 6, 7, 8, and 9, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–57–2038,

Revision 2, dated January 4, 1996. Thereafter,

repeat the inspection at intervals not to

exceed those specified in paragraph 1.B.(5) of

the service bulletin, as applicable. If any

crack is detected, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).

(t) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by this AD, and the

applicable service bulletin specifies to

contact Airbus for an appropriate action:

Prior to further flight, repair in accordance

with a method approved by either the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, or

the DGAC (or its delegated agent).

(u) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(v) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(w) Except for the repairs required in

paragraphs (h), (j), (k), (m)(2), (n)(2), (s), and

(t) of this AD, the actions shall be done in

accordance with the following Airbus service

bulletins and change notices, as applicable,

which contain the specified list of effective

pages:

Service bulletin and change notices referenced

and date Page No. shown on page Revision level shownon page Date shown on page

A310–53–2014, Revision 5, June 9, 1992 ....... 1–3, 21, 25 ....................................................... 5 ................................ June 9, 1992.

4–6, 14–16, 19, 20, 23, 26 ............................... 2 ................................ February 17, 1987.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 69185

Service bulletin and change notices referenced

and date Page No. shown on page Revision level shownon page Date shown on page

7–10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 24 ............................. 3 ................................ May 18, 1987.

11, 27, 28 ......................................................... 4 ................................ March 1, 1988.

A310–53–2014, Change Notice 5.A., September, 29, 1992.1 ........................................................................ Original ...................... September 29, 1992.

A310–53–2014, Change Notice 5.B., February

5, 1996.

1 ........................................................................ Original ...................... February 5, 1996.

A310–53–2016, Revision 5, December 7, 1992 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 43 ............................................. 5 ................................ December 7, 1992.

3, 4, 6, 7, 9–11, 16–18, 21–34, 39–42, 45 ...... 3 ................................ April 22, 1987.

5 ........................................................................ 1 ................................ November 12, 1985.

14, 15, 19, 20, 35–38, 44 ................................. 4 ................................ November 17, 1987.

A310–53–2054, Revision 2, May 22, 1990 ...... 1 ........................................................................ 2 ................................ May 22, 1990.

2 ........................................................................ 1 ................................ February 19, 1990.

3–13 .................................................................. Original ...................... January 16, 1990.

A310–53–2057, Revision 1, April 30, 1992 ...... 1, 2 .................................................................... 1 ................................ April 30, 1992.

3–9 .................................................................... Original ...................... February 26, 1991.

A310–53–2059, Revision 1, January 4, 1996 .. 1–6 .................................................................... 1 ................................ January 4, 1996.

7–26 .................................................................. Original ...................... October 4, 1991.

A310–55–2002, Revision 4, April 28, 1989 ...... 1, 31, 32 ........................................................... 4 ................................ April 28, 1989.

2–30, 33–47 ...................................................... 3 ................................ August 10, 1988.

A310–55–2004, Revision 2, February 7, 1991 1–4, 6–8 ............................................................ 2 ................................ February 7, 1991.

5, 9–17 .............................................................. Original ...................... September 6, 1988.

A310–57–2002, Revision 1, July 2, 1992 ........ 1–4 .................................................................... 1 ................................ July 2, 1992.

5–11 .................................................................. Original ...................... December 31, 1988.

A310–57–2002, Revision 2, January 4, 1996 .. 1–14 .................................................................. 2 ................................ January 4, 1996.

A310–57–2006, Revision 3, May 2, 1996 ........ 1, 10 .................................................................. 3 ................................ May 2, 1996.

2 ........................................................................ 2 ................................ March 28, 1995.

3, 4, 5–7 ........................................................... 1 ................................ April 8, 1993.

8, 9 .................................................................... Original ...................... August 13, 1986.

A310–57–2032, Revision 3, January 4, 1996 .. 1–12 .................................................................. 3 ................................ January 4, 1996.

A310–57–2037, Revision 3, January 4, 1996 .. 1–10 .................................................................. 3 ................................ January 4, 1996.

A310–57–2039, September 24, 1990 .............. 1–13 .................................................................. Original ...................... September 24, 1990.

A310–57–2046, Revision 4, October 16, 1996 1–14 .................................................................. 4 ................................ October 16, 1996.

Appendix 1

1–6 .................................................................... 3 ................................ October 17, 1995.

A310–57–2046, Change Notice 4A, October

16, 1996.

1 ........................................................................ Original ...................... October 16, 1996.

A310–57–2047, Revision 2, 57–58 January

22, 1997.

1, 4, 7–8, 13, 17–18, 57–58 ............................. 2 ................................ January 22, 1997.

2, 3, 5–6, 16, 37–39 ......................................... 1 ................................ January 4, 1996.

9–12, 14–15, 19–36, 40–56, 59–89 ................. Original ...................... February 26, 1991.

A310–57–2050, April 23, 1990 ......................... 1–31 .................................................................. Original ...................... April 23, 1990.

A310–57–2050, Change Notice O.A., September 29, 1992.1 ........................................................................ Original ...................... September 29, 1992.

A310–57–2050, Change Notice O.B., January

6, 1995.

1–2 .................................................................... Original ...................... January 6, 1995.

A310–53–2074, Revision 1, February 20, 1995 1–71 .................................................................. 1 ................................ February 20, 1995.

A310–57–2064, August 24, 1995 ..................... 1–25 .................................................................. Original ...................... August 24, 1995.

A310–57–2038, Revision 2, January 4, 1996 .. 1–6 .................................................................... 2 ................................ January 4, 1996.

7 ........................................................................ Original ...................... November 6, 1989.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707

Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 92–106–

132(B)R4, dated June 5, 1996.

(x) This amendment becomes effective

on January 20, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 8, 1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–33105 Filed 12–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–336–AD; Amendment

39–10945; AD 98–26–04]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 757 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.