Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33809 

1See §§ 1400.500(a) and 1400.1(a)(4) of this title. 

coverage level for that crop in that 

county; or 

(2) For a NAP eligible crop: 

(i) NAP coverage with a coverage level 

of 60 percent, if available for the 

applicable crop year, or NAP 

catastrophic coverage if NAP coverage is 

not offered at a 60 percent coverage 

level for that crop year. 

(ii) Participants who exceed the 

average adjusted gross income 

limitation for NAP payment eligibility 1

for the applicable crop year may meet 

the purchase requirement specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section by 

purchasing Whole-Farm Revenue 

Protection crop insurance coverage, if 

eligible, or paying the NAP service fee 

and premium even though the 

participant will not be eligible to receive 

a NAP payment due to the average 

adjusted gross income limit but will be 

eligible for the WHIP payment. 

(b) For the first 2 consecutive 

insurance years for which crop 

insurance is available after the 

enrollment period for 2017 WHIP ends, 

but no later than the 2021 crop year, any 

participant who receives 2017 WHIP 

payments for a tree, bush, or vine loss 

must purchase a plan of insurance for 

the tree, bush, or vine with at least a 60 

percent coverage level. 

(c) If a producer fails to obtain crop 

insurance or NAP coverage as required 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

the producer must reimburse FSA for 

the full amount of 2017 WHIP payment 

plus interest that the producer received 

for that crop, tree, bush, or vine loss. A 

producer will only be considered to 

have obtained NAP coverage for the 

purposes of this section if the 

participant applied and payed the 

requisite NAP service fee and paid any 

applicable premium by the applicable 

deadline and completed all program 

requirements, including filing an 

acreage report as may be required under 

such coverage agreement. 

Richard Fordyce, 

Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15346 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–1102; Product 

Identifier 2017–NM–078–AD; Amendment 

39–19320; AD 2018–13–08] 

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) 2016–01– 

11, which applied to certain Airbus 

Model A320–211, –212, and –231 

airplanes. AD 2016–01–11 required 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

radius of the front spar vertical stringers 

and the horizontal floor beam on frame 

(FR) 36, repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the fastener holes of the 

front spar vertical stringers on FR 36, 

and repair if necessary. This AD adds 

new thresholds and intervals for the 

repetitive inspections; requires, for 

certain airplanes, a potential 

terminating action modification of the 

center wing box area; and expands the 

applicability. This AD was prompted by 

a report that, during a center fuselage 

certification full-scale fatigue test, 

cracks were found on the front spar 

vertical stringer at a certain frame. This 

AD was also prompted by a 

determination that, during further 

investigations of the frame as part of the 

widespread fatigue damage (WFD) 

campaign, certain inspection 

compliance times have to be revised and 

new inspections and a new potential 

terminating action modification have to 

be introduced. We are issuing this AD 

to address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 22, 

2018. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of August 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Airbus, Airworthiness Office–EIAS, 

Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 

31700 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 Standards Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 

1102. 

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–2017– 

1102; 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 (telephone 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: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 

telephone and fax 206–231–3223. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2016–01–11, 

Amendment 39–18370 (81 FR 3316, 

January 21, 2016) (‘‘AD 2016–01–11’’). 

AD 2016–01–11 applied to certain 

Airbus Model A320–211, –212, and 

–231 airplanes. The NPRM published in 

the Federal Register on December 13, 

2017 (82 FR 58566). The NPRM was 

prompted by a report that, during a 

center fuselage certification full-scale 

fatigue test, cracks were found on the 

front spar vertical stringer at a certain 

frame. The NPRM proposed to continue 

to require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the radius of the front spar 

vertical stringers and the horizontal 

floor beam on FR 36, repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the fastener 

holes of the front spar vertical stringers 

on FR 36, and repair if necessary. The 

NPRM also proposed to add new 

thresholds and intervals for the 

repetitive inspections; require, for 

certain airplanes, a potential 

terminating action modification of the 

center wing box area; and expand the 

applicability. We are issuing this AD to 

address fatigue cracking of the front spar 

vertical stringers on the wings, which 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
33810 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

could result in the reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD 2017–0099, 

dated June 8, 2017 (referred to after this 

as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for certain Airbus Model A318 series 

airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; 

Model A320–211, –212, –214, –216, 

–231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and 

Model A321 series airplanes. The MCAI 

states: 

During centre fuselage certification fullscale fatigue test, cracks were found on the 

front vertical stringer at frame (FR) 36. 

Analysis of these findings indicated that a 

number of in-service aeroplanes could be 

similarly affected. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to crack propagation 

and consequent deterioration of the 

structural integrity of the aeroplane. 

To address this potential unsafe condition, 

Airbus issued Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) 

A320–57–1016 to provide inspection 

instructions, and, consequently, [Direction 

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile] DGAC France 

issued AD 97–311–105 [which corresponded 

to FAA AD 98–18–26, Amendment 39–10742 

(63 FR 47423, September 8, 1998)] to require 

those repetitive [high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC)] inspections [for cracking]. At the 

same time, modification in accordance with 

Airbus SB A320–57–1017 was introduced as 

(optional) terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections * * *. 

After that [French] AD was issued, and 

following new analysis, modification per 

Airbus SB A320–57–1017 was no longer 

considered to be terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections as required by DGAC 

France AD 97–311–105. Aeroplanes with 

[manufacturer serial number] MSN 0080 up 

to MSN 0155 inclusive were delivered with 

the addition of a 5 [millimeter] mm thick 

light alloy shim under the heads of 2 

fasteners at the top end of the front spar 

vertical stringers (Airbus mod 21290P1546, 

which is the production line equivalent to inservice modification through Airbus SB 

A320–57–1017). Aeroplanes with MSN 0156 

or higher are delivered with vertical 

stiffeners of the forward wing spar upper end 

with stiffener cap thickness increased from 4 

to 6 mm (Airbus mod 21290P1547). 

Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued 

SB A320–57–1178 Revision 01 to introduce 

new repetitive inspections and, 

consequently, EASA issued AD 2014–0069 

[which corresponds to FAA AD 2016–01–11], 

superseding DGAC France AD 97–311–105 to 

require the new repetitive inspections, and, 

depending on findings, accomplishment of 

applicable corrective action(s). 

Since [EASA] AD 2014–0069 was issued, 

further investigations in the frame of the 

Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) 

campaign identified that some repetitive 

inspection thresholds and intervals have to 

be revised or introduced, and a new 

[potential] terminating action modification 

has been designed. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA 

AD 2014–0069, which is superseded, revises 

and introduces thresholds and intervals for 

the repetitive inspections, [introduces a 

potential terminating action modification,] 

and expands the Applicability. 

Required actions also include 

reporting. Although this AD does not 

explicitly restate the requirements of AD 

2016–01–11, it retains certain 

requirements of AD 2016–01–11. Those 

requirements are referenced in Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–57–1178, 

Revision 03, including only Appendix 

03, both dated November 29, 2016. 

This service information is identified 

in ‘‘Related Service Information under 1 

CFR part 51,’’ in this preamble and in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. You may 

examine the MCAI in the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 

1102. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM 

United Airlines (UAL) stated that it 

agrees with the intent of the NPRM. 

Request To Change Costs of Compliance 

Section 

Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that 

the Costs of Compliance section of the 

proposed AD be revised to include the 

costs for reporting inspection findings 

and for modifying the airplane as 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–57–1200. DAL stated that the cost 

of reporting, in addition to the cost for 

the modification has been significantly 

underestimated in the cost section of the 

proposed AD. DAL noted that it takes 2 

work-hours per airplane to do the steps 

for reporting, in addition to numerous 

work-hours for setup time. DAL pointed 

out that the proposed AD mandates two 

service bulletins, and the cost of both 

should be included in the proposed AD. 

DAL explained that the kit cost for the 

modification is $55,360 (depending on 

configuration), and the labor is 

approximately 137 work-hours. DAL 

stated that the cost does not reflect lost 

revenue due to removing the airplane 

from service outside of the normal 

maintenance schedule. Given all of 

these factors, DAL asserted that the true 

cost of the proposed AD on operators 

should be as follows. 

• For the inspection provided in 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1178: 

$1,947,850 + $232,275 for reporting. 

• For the modification provided in 

Airbus Service bulletin A320–57–1200: 

$54,609,075 + $232,275 for reporting. 

• Total cost to industry is: 

$57,021,475. 

We partially agree. We do not agree to 

increase the work-hours for reporting; 

however. We estimate only the time 

necessary to submit a report (per each 

response), since the reporting 

information would be obtained when 

accomplishing the inspection(s) in the 

service bulletin(s). However, we do 

agree to include the costs for the 

modification for certain airplanes 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–57–1200, dated November 20, 

2015, which will result in a total fleet 

cost of $1,107,050 or $110,705 per 

product, for the basic requirement of 

this AD. We have changed the ‘‘Costs of 

Compliance’’ section of this final rule 

accordingly. 

Request To Clarify Certain 

Requirements in Table 1 to Paragraphs 

(g), (h), (i)(1), and (j) of the Proposed AD 

UAL asked that we revise table 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(1), and (j) of the 

proposed AD to clarify that Airbus 

modification (Mod) 21290P1546 is 

limited to airplanes with manufacturer 

serial numbers (MSN) 0080 up to MSN 

0155 inclusive. UAL also asked that 

another clarification be added to table 1 

to specify that Mod 21290P1547 is 

effective for airplanes with MSN 0156 or 

higher, which were delivered with 

vertical stiffeners of the forward wing 

spar upper end with stiffener cap 

thickness increased from 4 to 6 mm. 

UAL stated that those airplanes were 

delivered with the addition of a 5 

millimeter (mm) thick light alloy shim 

under the heads of two fasteners at the 

top end of the front spar vertical 

stringers. UAL added that Mod 

21290P1546 is the production line 

equivalent to in-service modifications 

through Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

57–1017. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

requests. Figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), 

(i)(1), and (j) of this AD (table 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(1), and (j) of the 

proposed AD) defines configurations by 

whether or not certain modifications 

were done and certain service bulletins 

were embodied. Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–57–1017 provides information 

regarding Mod 21290P1546 and Mod 

21290P1547 that identifies the specific 

configuration of the airplanes. The 

definitions in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), 

(h), (i)(1), and (j) of this AD and figure 

2 to paragraphs (g) and (i)(1) of this AD 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33811 

correspond to the airplane configuration 

definitions provided in Appendix 1 of 

EASA AD 2017–0099, dated June 8, 

2017. Therefore, we have not changed 

this AD in this regard. 

Request To Extend Compliance Times 

for Configuration 003 Airplanes 

DAL asked that we extend the 

proposed initial compliance time for 

Configuration 003 airplanes identified 

in figure 3 to paragraph (i)(1) of the 

proposed AD. DAL asked that the initial 

inspection be extended to 24 months, or 

at a minimum, that the flight-hour limit 

be increased to 1,500 flight hours, since 

the initial inspection is dependent on 

flight cycles, not flight hours. DAL 

provided the following options for the 

proposed compliance time: (1) Next 

scheduled . . ., (2) 12-month . . ., or (3) 

4-months. . . . DAL stated that it 

currently operates five airplanes, which 

are Configuration 003 on which the 

threshold of ‘‘Before exceeding 32,000 

flight cycles or 64,000 flight hours since 

airplane first flight’’ for the initial 

inspection has been exceeded. DAL 

added that, at current fleet utilization 

rates, it will require the inspections be 

done within approximately 85 days after 

the effective date of the AD, due to the 

flight-hour limit. DAL noted that this 

will necessitate a special maintenance 

visit. DAL also stated that its 

maintenance program requires a 

maintenance visit every 24 months, and 

added that most, if not all, of the 

airplanes will not visit a hangar within 

the next 3 months. 

DAL asked that the compliance time 

be extended to 6 years after the effective 

date of the AD, with supplemental 

inspections for accomplishing the 

modification required by paragraph (j) 

of the proposed AD. At a minimum, 

DAL requested relief by allowing for an 

inspection, as specified in Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–57–1178, 

Revision 03, dated November 29, 2016, 

at 2-year intervals until the heavy ‘‘H’’ 

check can be reached. DAL stated that 

modifications to Configuration 003 

airplanes require incorporation of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1200, 

dated November 20, 2015, prior to 

reaching 48,000 flight cycles or 96,000 

flight hours, whichever occurs first. 

DAL stated that, at its current utilization 

rate, this modification would be 

required in approximately 4 years; 

however, its current heavy maintenance 

‘‘H’’ checks are scheduled at 6-year 

intervals. DAL noted that this is a 

minimal risk, since Configuration 003 

airplanes will receive supplemental 

inspections within a short time after the 

effective date specified in paragraph 

(i)(1) of the proposed AD. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

requests to extend the specified 

compliance times. The compliance 

times for the actions specified in this 

AD for addressing widespread fatigue 

damage (WFD) were established to 

ensure that affected structure is replaced 

before WFD develops. Standard 

inspection techniques cannot be relied 

on to detect WFD before it becomes a 

hazard to flight. We will not grant any 

extensions of the compliance time to 

complete any AD-mandated service 

bulletin related to WFD without 

extensive new data that would 

substantiate and clearly warrant such an 

extension. Therefore, we have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Allow Alternative Method 

of Compliance (AMOC) in Lieu of 

Contacting the Manufacturer for Repair 

Instructions 

DAL asked that an allowance be made 

under the provisions of paragraph (o)(2) 

of the proposed AD (and future ADs) for 

contacting Airbus for any deviations to 

the instructions contained within the 

service bulletins required in paragraphs 

(i) and (j) of the proposed AD, and to be 

able to use their EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA) approvals 

without seeking separate and redundant 

FAA AMOCs. DAL stated that as 

airplanes are scheduled for maintenance 

to comply with the proposed AD, the 

operator may discover that the Airbus 

service information contains errors that 

can affect compliance with the actions 

in the proposed AD. DAL did not state 

there are any known errors in the 

service information required in 

paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed 

AD. DAL added that, although the 

proposed AD provides an option to 

receive approval from the Manager, 

International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA, or 

Airbus’s EASA DOA; as specified in 

paragraph (o)(2) of the proposed AD, no 

such allowance is provided for receiving 

approval for deviations from the service 

information. DAL noted that past 

experience has shown that the FAA is 

unable to provide AMOC approvals 

within 2 days after receiving the 

request, which could result in 

grounding of airplanes. DAL suggested 

using the language in paragraph (6) of 

the MCAI. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. Paragraph (o)(2) of this AD, 

‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer,’’ only 

addresses the requirement to contact the 

manufacturer for corrective actions for 

the identified unsafe condition and does 

not cover deviations from the 

requirements of AD-mandated actions. 

We do not agree to expand paragraph 

(o)(2) of this AD to include such 

deviations because we need to ensure 

that any deviations from the 

requirements of AD-mandated actions 

are properly reviewed to adequately 

address the unsafe condition. Regarding 

paragraph (6) of the MCAI, if an 

operator is not able to comply with 

service information that is required by 

an AD, then the operator must request 

an AMOC in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (o)(1) 

of this AD. 

We also note that, although we cannot 

guarantee AMOC approvals within 2 

business days, we have provided AMOC 

approvals to U.S. operators, including 

DAL, within 24 hours of receiving the 

request, provided operators submit a 

complete AMOC package with 

substantiation and explanation of the 

urgency, such as, but not limited to, a 

disruption in operation. Guidance for 

submitting AMOCs is available in FAA 

Advisory Circular (AC) 39–10. We also 

recommend that operators work with 

the original equipment manufacturers to 

address errors in service information as 

part of AD planning, in addition to 

submitting comments to the NPRM 

denoting any errors in the service 

information, so that corrections to 

methods of compliance (MOC) can be 

addressed in the FAA final rule. 

Additional guidance for operators on 

AD management can be found in FAA 

AC 39–9. We have not changed this AD 

in this regard. 

Requests To Change or Delete Reporting 

Requirement 

DAL and UAL asked that the 

reporting of findings (positive or 

negative), as specified in the reporting 

requirement in paragraphs (n) and (o)(4) 

of the proposed AD, be limited to 

positive findings only, or be removed 

entirely. DAL stated that it will require 

a significant amount of work to collect, 

collate, and disseminate the requested 

data to Airbus, resulting in little or no 

benefit to the airworthiness of the 

airplane. DAL added that any findings 

will require transmission of findings to 

engineering from maintenance prior to 

submission to Airbus, which could 

result in a time lag and opportunities for 

error. DAL and UAL asserted that all 

positive findings are already reported to 

Airbus as part of the repair process and 

Airbus has the means to determine 

negative findings, so reporting is a 

duplicative burden on operators. 

Further, DAL argued that the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (https://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ13/html/ 

PLAW-104publ13.htm) is meant to 

reduce the burden placed on public 

entities from government agencies when 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
33812 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the information is obtainable from other 

sources, especially for the convenience 

of a foreign business. Additionally, DAL 

notes that only individuals that have the 

required access—controlled by Airbus— 

may submit reports, and provided data 

about what is required in order to 

submit a report (i.e., work-hours for the 

various steps in the process). DAL 

asserted that the cost of reporting on its 

operation would be $518,710, and that 

Airbus, EASA, nor the FAA have 

demonstrated in any of the service 

documents why the reporting 

requirement in this AD is necessary. 

We agree to limit the reporting 

requirement to positive findings only for 

the reasons provided by the 

commenters. We have changed 

paragraph (n) of this AD accordingly. 

We do not agree to remove the 

reporting requirement in this AD 

because the inspection reports will 

enable the manufacturer to obtain better 

insight into the nature, cause, and 

extent of the cracking, and eventually to 

develop final corrective action to 

address the unsafe condition. Once final 

corrective action has been identified, we 

might consider further rulemaking. 

Clarification of Actions That Prompted 

This AD 

We have revised the SUMMARY section 

of this final rule and paragraph (e) of 

this AD to clarify what prompted this 

AD. In addition to the report of cracks 

on the front spar vertical stringer at a 

certain frame, this AD was prompted by 

a determination that, during further 

investigations of the frame as part of the 

WFD campaign, certain inspection 

compliance times have to be revised and 

new inspections and a new potential 

terminating action modification have to 

be introduced. 

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 for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Airbus has issued the following 

service information. 

• Service Bulletin A320–57–1178, 

Revision 03, including only Appendix 

03, both dated November 29, 2016. The 

service information describes 

procedures for a rototest inspection for 

cracking of the radius of the front spar 

vertical stringers on FR 36, a HFEC for 

cracking of the horizontal floor beam on 

FR 36, and an HFEC inspection for 

cracking of the fastener holes of the 

front spar vertical stringers on FR 36. 

• Service Bulletin A320–57–1200, 

dated November 20, 2015. The service 

information describes procedures for 

modifying the center wing box area, 

which includes related investigative and 

corrective actions. Related investigative 

actions include an HFEC inspection on 

the radius of the rib flanges, a rototest 

inspection of the fastener holes, detailed 

and HFEC inspections for cracking on 

the cut edges, detailed and rototest 

inspections on all open fastener holes, 

and an inspection to determine if 

secondary structure brackets are 

installed. Corrective action includes 

reworking the secondary structure 

bracket and repair. 

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. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 815 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The actions required by AD 2016–01– 

11, take about 24 work-hours per 

inspection cycle per product, at an 

average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the actions that are required by 

AD 2016–01–11 is $2,040 per inspection 

cycle per product. 

We also estimate that it takes about 

273 work-hours per product to comply 

with the basic requirements of this AD 

and 1 work-hour for reporting per 

response. The average labor rate is $85 

per work-hour. Required parts cost 

about $87,500 per product. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of 

this AD on affected U.S. operators of 

certain airplanes specified in the service 

information to be $1,107,050 or 

$110,705 per product. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the repair of cracking 

specified in this AD. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a current valid 

OMB control number. The control 

number for the collection of information 

required by this AD is 2120–0056. The 

paperwork cost associated with this AD 

has been detailed in the Costs of 

Compliance section of this document 

and includes time for reviewing 

instructions, as well as completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Therefore, all reporting associated with 

this AD is mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden 

and suggestions for reducing the burden 

should be directed to the FAA at 800 

Independence Ave. SW, Washington, 

DC 20591, ATTN: Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

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. 

This AD is issued in accordance with 

authority delegated by the Executive 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service, 

as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. 

In accordance with that order, issuance 

of ADs is normally a function of the 

Compliance and Airworthiness 

Division, but during this transition 

period, the Executive Director has 

delegated the authority to issue ADs 

applicable to transport category 

airplanes to the Director of the System 

Oversight Division. 

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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33813 

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. 

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) 

2016–01–11, Amendment 39–18370 (81 

FR 3316, January 21, 2016), and adding 

the following new AD: 

2018–13–08 Airbus: Amendment 39–19320; 

Docket No. FAA–2017–1102; Product 

Identifier 2017–NM–078–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective August 22, 2018. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2016–01–11, 

Amendment 39–18370 (81 FR 3316, January 

21, 2016) (‘‘AD 2016–01–11’’). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Model A318– 

111, –112, –121, and –122 airplanes; Model 

A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, 

–132, and –133 airplanes; Model A320–211, 

–212, –214, –216, –231, –232, and –233 

airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, –131, 

–211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes; 

certificated in any category; all manufacturer 

serial numbers, except airplanes specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Model A319 and A320 series airplanes 

on which Airbus Modification 160000 

(structural reinforcement for sharklet 

installation) has been embodied in 

production. 

(2) Model A321 series airplanes on which 

Airbus Modification 160021 (structural 

reinforcement for sharklet installation) has 

been embodied in production. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a report that, 

during a center fuselage certification fullscale fatigue test, cracks were found on the 

front spar vertical stringer at frame (FR) 36. 

This AD was also prompted by a 

determination that, during further 

investigations of the frame as part of the 

widespread fatigue damage (WFD) campaign, 

certain inspection compliance times have to 

be revised and new inspections and a new 

potential terminating action modification 

have to be introduced. We are issuing this 

AD to address fatigue cracking of the front 

spar vertical stringers on the wings, which 

could result in the reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Definition of Airplane Configurations 

For the purposes of this AD, airplane 

configurations are defined in figure 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(1), and (j) of this AD 

and figure 2 to paragraphs (g) and (i)(1) of 

this AD. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER18JY18.001</GPH>
33814 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(h) Actions Required for Previously 

Inspected Airplanes 

For Configuration 001, 002, or 003 

airplanes, as identified in figure 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(1), and (j) of this AD, 

on which the inspections specified in Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–57–1178, dated 

October 29, 2013, have been accomplished 

before the effective date of this AD; but the 

additional work specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–57–1178, Revision 01, dated 

May 28, 2014, including Appendix 01, dated 

May 28, 2014, has not been accomplished 

before the effective date of this AD: Before 

accomplishing the initial inspection required 

by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, contact the 

Manager, International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus’s 

EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) 

for further instructions and accomplish those 

instructions accordingly. 

(i) Repetitive Inspections 

(1) Within the compliance time defined in 

figure 3 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, as 

applicable to airplane configuration as 

identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), 

(i)(1), and (j) of this AD and figure 2 to 

paragraphs (g) and (i)(1) of this AD, 

accomplish a special detailed inspection 

(SDI) for cracking of the radius of the front 

spar vertical stringers and the horizontal 

floor beam and the fastener holes on FR 36, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320– 

57–1178, Revision 03, including only 

Appendix 03, both dated November 29, 2016. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER18JY18.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33815 

(2) If no cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) of this 

AD, repeat the inspection required by 

paragraph (i)(1) of this AD thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed the inspection 

interval values defined in figure 4 to 

paragraphs (i)(2) and (l) of this AD, except as 

provided by paragraph (l) of this AD. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER18JY18.003</GPH>
33816 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(j) Modification 

For A320 series airplanes, Configuration 

001, 002, or 003 as identified in figure 1 to 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i)(1), and (j) of this AD: 

Within the compliance time defined in figure 

5 to paragraph (j) of this AD, as applicable, 

modify the center wing box area, including 

doing all applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–57–1200, dated 

November 20, 2015, except as required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD. Do all applicable 

related investigative and corrective actions 

before further flight. 

(k) Corrective Action 

If any crack is found during any inspection 

required by this AD: Before further flight, 

repair using a method approved by the 

Manager, International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or 

Airbus’s EASA DOA. If approved by the 

DOA, the approval must include the DOAauthorized signature. Where Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–57–1178, Revision 03, 

including only Appendix 03, both dated 

November 29, 2016; and Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–57–1200, dated November 20, 

2015; specify to contact Airbus for 

appropriate action, and specify that action as 

‘‘RC’’ (Required for Compliance), accomplish 

corrective actions in accordance with this 

paragraph. 

(l) Previous Repairs 

For airplanes that have been repaired in 

the inspection area specified in paragraph 

(i)(1) of this AD before the effective date of 

this AD using a method approved by the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER18JY18.004</GPH> ER18JY18.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33817 

Manager, International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or 

Airbus’s EASA DOA: Accomplish repetitive 

SDIs within the compliance time defined in 

those repair instructions for repetitive SDIs. 

If no compliance time is identified in the 

repair instructions for repetitive SDIs, 

accomplish the repetitive SDIs required by 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD at the compliance 

times defined in figure 4 to paragraphs (i)(2) 

and (l) of this AD. 

(m) No Terminating Action 

Modification or repair of an airplane, as 

specified in paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD, 

does not constitute terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections required by this AD, 

unless it is specified otherwise in a repair 

method approved by the Manager, 

International Section, Transport Standards 

Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus’s EASA 

DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval 

must include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(n) Reporting Requirement 

Submit a report of the positive findings of 

the inspections required by paragraphs (i) 

and (j) of this AD to ‘‘Airbus Service Bulletin 

Reporting Online Application’’ on Airbus 

World (https://w3.airbus.com/), at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1) 

or (n)(2) of this AD. 

(1) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Report within 

30 days after that inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Report within 30 

days after the effective date of this AD. 

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Section, Transport Standards 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 manager of the International 

Section, send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD. 

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. 

(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 Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or 

Airbus’s EASA DOA. If approved by the 

DOA, the approval must include the DOAauthorized signature. 

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except 

as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, if 

any service information contains procedures 

or tests that are identified as RC, those 

procedures and tests must be done to comply 

with this AD; any procedures or tests that are 

not identified as RC are recommended. Those 

procedures and tests that are not identified 

as RC may be deviated from using accepted 

methods in accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program without 

obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided 

the procedures and tests identified as RC can 

be done and the airplane can be put back in 

an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or 

changes to procedures or tests identified as 

RC require approval of an AMOC. 

(4) Reporting Requirements: A federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 1 work-hour per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence 

Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

(p) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 

2017–0099, dated June 8, 2017, for related 

information. This MCAI may be found in the 

AD docket on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and 

locating Docket No. FAA–2017–1102. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Section, Transport Standards 

Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206– 

231–3223. 

(3) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (q)(3) and (q)(4) of this AD. 

(q) 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. 

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1178, 

Revision 03, including only Appendix 03, 

both dated November 29, 2016. 

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1200, 

dated November 20, 2015. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness 

Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine 

No: 2, 31700 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. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

(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 Des Moines, Washington, on June 

12, 2018. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13802 Filed 7–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0073; Product 

Identifier 2017–NM–100–AD; Amendment 

39–19318; AD 2018–13–06] 

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 certain 

The Boeing Company Model 767–300 

and –300F series airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by reports of fatigue cracking 

in the lower outboard wing skin at the 

farthest outboard fastener of the inboard 

segment of a certain stringer. This AD 

requires repetitive high frequency eddy 

current (HFEC) inspections for cracking 

of the lower outboard wing skin at the 

inboard segment of a certain stringer, 

and repair if necessary. We are issuing 

this AD to address the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 22, 

2018. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of August 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S 102nd 

Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; 

telephone 206–762–1171; internet 

https://www.aviationpartners

boeing.com. You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., 

Des Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 206–231–3195. It is also available 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES