Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5911 

limits are needed for the affected turbine 

wheels. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

uncontained failure of the turbine wheels, 

damage to the engine, and damage to the 

airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) For all RRC AE 3007A1, A1/1, A1/3, 

A1E, A1P, and A3 series engines with an 

HPT stage 2 wheel P/N and S/N identified in 

RRC ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72–408, Revision 

1, dated August 29, 2014, at each shop visit 

after the effective date of this AD, eddy 

current inspect the bore of the affected HPT 

stage 2 wheels. Use RRC ASB No. AE 3007A– 

A–72–408, Revision 1, August 29, 2014, to do 

the inspection. Do not return to service any 

wheel that fails the inspection required by 

this AD. 

(2) Thirty days after the effective date of 

this AD, do not return to service any engine 

that has a turbine wheel with a P/N and an 

S/N listed in any of the following RRC ASBs 

whose wheel life exceeds the new life limits 

identified in the following RRC ASBs: 

(i) RRC ASB No. AE 2100D2–A–72–085, 

dated July 25, 2013; 

(ii) RRC ASB No. AE 2100D3–A–72–277, 

dated July 25, 2013; 

(iii) RRC ASB No. AE 2100P–A–72–019, 

dated July 25, 2013; 

(iv) RRC ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72–407, 

Revision 1, dated August 29, 2014; or 

(v) RRC ASB No. AE 3007C–A–72–316, 

dated December 6, 2013. 

(f) Installation Prohibition 

Thirty days after the effective date of this 

AD, do not install an affected wheel, as 

identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, into 

any RRC AE 3007C2 engine. 

(g) Definition 

For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine 

shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into 

the shop for maintenance involving the 

separation of pairs of major mating engine 

flanges, except that the separation of engine 

flanges solely for the purposes of 

transportation without subsequent engine 

maintenance is not an engine shop visit. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Chicago Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. 

(i) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace 

Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification 

Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; 

phone: 847–294–7836; fax: 847–294–7834; 

email: kyri.zaroyiannis@faa.gov. 

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 

No. AE 2100D2–A–72–085, dated July 25, 

2013. 

(ii) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 2100D3–A– 

72–277, dated July 25, 2013. 

(iii) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 2100P–A–72– 

019, dated July 25, 2013. 

(iv) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72– 

407, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2014. 

(v) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 3007A–A–72– 

408, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2014. 

(vi) Rolls-Royce ASB No. AE 3007C–A–72– 

316, dated December 6, 2013. 

(3) For RRC service information identified 

in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 

450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB– 

01–06, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317– 

230–1667; email: CMSEindyOSD@rollsroyce.com; Internet: www.rolls-royce.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.

gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

January 13, 2015. 

Thomas A. Boudreau, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01282 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0138; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–020–AD; Amendment 

39–18086; AD 2015–02–19] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95–24–04 

for all Airbus Model A300 series 

airplanes; Model A300 B4–600, B4– 

600R, and F4–600R series airplanes; and 

Model A300 C4–605R Variant F 

airplanes. AD 95–24–04 required 

inspections to detect cracks at the aft 

spar web of the wings, and repair if 

necessary. This new AD reduces certain 

compliance times, and expands the 

applicability. This AD was prompted by 

a determination that the inspection 

threshold and interval must be reduced 

to allow timely detection of cracks and 

accomplishment of applicable repairs, 

because of cracking in the rear spar web 

of the wings between certain ribs due to 

fatigue-related high shear stress. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct 

fatigue-related cracking, which could 

result in reduced structural integrity of 

the wing. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

March 11, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of March 11, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain other publications listed in 

this AD as of December 27, 1995 (60 FR 

58213, November 27, 1995). 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA2014-0138; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, 

Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; 

fax 425–227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 95–24–04, 

Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, 

November 27, 1995). AD 95–24–04 

applied to all Airbus Model A300 series 

airplanes; Model A300 B4–600, B4– 

600R, and F4–600R series airplanes; and 

Model A300 C4–605R Variant F 

airplanes (collectively called Model 

A300–600 series airplanes). The NPRM 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 12, 2014 (79 FR 13944). 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2013–0013R1, dated February 

20, 2013 (referred to after this as the 

Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness 

Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct 

an unsafe condition on all Model A300 

series airplanes; Model A300 B4–600, 

B4–600R, and F4–600R series airplanes; 

and Model A300 C4–605R Variant F 

airplanes. The MCAI states: 

Wing fatigue tests carried out by Airbus 

revealed cracks on the vertical web of the 

rear spar between Ribs 1 and 2. Similar 

cracks in the same area were reportedly 

found by A300 aeroplane operators. In all 

cases, the cracks ran from the tip of the build 

slot to the nearest adjacent bolt hole. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could affect the structural integrity 

of the aeroplane. 

To address this unsafe condition, DGAC 

[Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile] 

France issued * * * [an AD] to require an 

eddy current inspection of the aft face of the 

wing rear spar in the area adjacent to the 

build slot on Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand 

(RH) wings. 

Since that [French] AD was issued, a fleet 

survey and updated fatigue and damage 

tolerance analysis were performed in order to 

substantiate the second A300–600 Extended 

Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of 

the survey and analysis showed that the 

inspection threshold and interval must be 

reduced to allow timely detection of cracks 

and accomplishment of an applicable 

corrective action. 

Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued 

Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300–57–6059 

Revision 04. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC 

France AD 1997–375–239(B)R3, which is 

superseded, but redefines the thresholds and 

intervals. This [EASA] AD also expands the 

applicability to aeroplanes on which Airbus 

modification (mod) 12102 has been 

embodied in production and to aeroplanes on 

which Airbus SB A300–57–6063 (Airbus 

mod 11130) has been embodied in service. 

* * * * * 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;

D=FAA-2014-0138-0003. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (79 FR 13944, 

March 12, 2014) and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Request To Clarify Applicability 

UPS requested confirmation that 

Model A300 F4–622R airplanes, which 

have Airbus Modification 12102 

embodied, do not require inspection per 

the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 

2014). 

We agree to clarify the applicability. 

Model A300 F4–622R airplanes are not 

included in the applicability of this AD. 

No change is necessary to this AD in 

this regard. 

Requests To Clarify Inspection 

Threshold 

UPS and FedEx requested 

clarification of the inspection threshold 

for post-modification 11130 (Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6063) 

airplanes. The commenters asked if the 

inspection threshold is from time of 

modification embodiment or if it is 

based on total flight cycles. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. The inspection threshold for 

post-modification 11130 (Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6063) airplanes is 

determined from point of embodiment 

of Modification 11130, and is not based 

on total flight cycles. We have added 

this clarification to paragraph (l)(1) of 

this AD. 

Request To Revise Certain Compliance 

Times 

UPS requested that we revise the 

compliance times in paragraph (l) of the 

NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014) to 

use the same methodology and 

consistency used in the compliance 

time intervals specified in paragraphs 

(g) through (j) of the proposed AD. UPS 

stated that it disagrees with using the 

average flight time compliance 

methodology and it believes that, in this 

case, thresholds and repetitive intervals 

should be based on wing loading 

differences between passengerconfiguration and freighterconfiguration airplanes. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request to revise the specified 

compliance times. The commenter did 

not provide data to substantiate 

different airplane utilization and the 

effect on the identified unsafe 

condition. The specific values suggested 

by the commenter are not supported by 

the fatigue and damage tolerance 

analysis accomplished by Airbus. The 

average flight time methodology was 

supported by EASA. The FAA has 

confidence that the unsafe condition 

will be addressed in an appropriate time 

frame. Under the provisions of 

paragraph (p)(1) of this AD, we will 

consider requests for approval of an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted 

to substantiate different airplane 

utilization. We have not changed this 

AD in this regard. 

Request To Remove Repair Approval 

Requirement 

FedEx acknowledged that repair 

approvals must specifically ‘‘refer to 

this AD,’’ but made no specific request. 

UPS requested that we remove the 

statement ‘‘For a repair method to be 

approved, the repair approval must 

specifically refer to this AD’’ from 

paragraphs (k)(2) and (n) of the NPRM 

(79 FR 13944, March 12, 2014). UPS 

stated that the NPRM indicates that this 

requirement is due to the potential for 

doing inadequate repairs. UPS asserted 

that no examples are included in the 

NPRM to demonstrate where inadequate 

repairs were made, and that the 

proposed wording, being specific to 

repairs, eliminates the interpretation 

that Airbus messages or other approved 

EASA documents are acceptable for 

approving minor deviations (corrective 

actions) needed during accomplishment 

of a mandated Airbus service bulletin. 

UPS also stated that this repair 

requirement will result in an increase in 

AMOC requests to the FAA, and will 

likely result in delays to other FAA 

services and activities. 

We concur with UPS’s request to 

remove from this AD the requirement 

that repair approvals must specifically 

refer to this AD. 

Since late 2006, we have included a 

standard paragraph titled ‘‘Airworthy 

Product’’ in all MCAI ADs in which the 

FAA develops an AD based on a foreign 

authority’s AD. The MCAI or referenced 

service information in an FAA AD often 

directs the owner/operator to contact 

the manufacturer for corrective actions, 

such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy 

Product paragraph allowed owners/

operators to use corrective actions 

provided by the manufacturer if those 

actions were FAA-approved. In 

addition, the paragraph stated that any 

actions approved by the State of Design 

Authority (or its delegated agent) are 

considered to be FAA-approved. 

In the NPRM (79 FR 13944, March 12, 

2014), we proposed to prevent the use 

of repairs that were not specifically 

developed to correct the unsafe 

condition, by requiring that the repair 

approval provided by the State of 

Design Authority or its delegated agent 

specifically refer to this FAA AD. This 

change was intended to clarify the 

method of compliance and to provide 

operators with better visibility of repairs 

that are specifically developed and 

approved to correct the unsafe 

condition. In addition, we proposed to 

change the phrase ‘‘its delegated agent’’ 

to include a design approval holder 

(DAH) with State of Design Authority 

design organization approval (DOA), as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5913 

applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized 

to approve required repairs for the 

proposed AD. 

UPS specifically stated the following 

in its comments to the NPRM (79 FR 

13944, March 12, 2014): ‘‘The proposed 

wording, being specific to repairs, 

eliminates the interpretation that Airbus 

messages are acceptable for approving 

minor deviations (corrective actions) 

needed during accomplishment of an 

AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.’’ 

This comment has made the FAA 

aware that some operators have 

misunderstood or misinterpreted the 

Airworthy Product paragraph to allow 

the owner/operator to use messages 

provided by the manufacturer as 

approval of deviations during the 

accomplishment of an AD-mandated 

action. The Airworthy Product 

paragraph does not approve messages or 

other information provided by the 

manufacturer for deviations to the 

requirements of the AD-mandated 

actions. The Airworthy Product 

paragraph only addresses the 

requirement to contact the manufacturer 

for corrective actions for the identified 

unsafe condition and does not cover 

deviations from other AD requirements. 

However, deviations to AD-required 

actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, 

and anyone may request the approval 

for an alternative method of compliance 

to the AD-required actions using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

To address this misunderstanding and 

misinterpretation of the Airworthy 

Product paragraph, we have changed 

that paragraph and retitled it 

‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer.’’ This 

paragraph now clarifies that for any 

requirement in this AD to obtain 

corrective actions from a manufacturer, 

the actions must be accomplished using 

a method approved by the FAA, EASA, 

or Airbus’s EASA DOA. 

The Contacting the Manufacturer 

paragraph also clarifies that, if approved 

by the DOA, the approval must include 

the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA 

signature indicates that the data and 

information contained in the document 

are EASA-approved, which is also FAAapproved. Messages and other 

information provided by the 

manufacturer that do not contain the 

DOA-authorized signature approval are 

not EASA-approved, unless EASA 

directly approves the manufacturer’s 

message or other information. 

This clarification does not remove 

flexibility afforded previously by the 

Airworthy Product paragraph. 

Consistent with long-standing FAA 

policy, such flexibility was never 

intended for required actions. This is 

also consistent with the 

recommendation of the Airworthiness 

Directive Implementation Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee to increase 

flexibility in complying with ADs by 

identifying those actions in 

manufacturers’ service instructions that 

are ‘‘Required for Compliance’’ with 

ADs. We continue to work with 

manufacturers to implement this 

recommendation. But once we 

determine that an action is required, any 

deviation from the requirement must be 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance. 

Commenters to an NPRM having 

Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD 

(78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) 

pointed out that in many cases the 

foreign manufacturer’s service bulletin 

and the foreign authority’s MCAI may 

have been issued some time before the 

FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have 

provided U.S. operators with an 

approved repair, developed with full 

awareness of the unsafe condition, 

before the FAA AD is issued. Under 

these circumstances, to comply with the 

FAA AD, the operator would be 

required to go back to the 

manufacturer’s DOA and obtain a new 

approval document, adding time and 

expense to the compliance process with 

no safety benefit. 

Based on these comments, we 

removed the requirement that the DAHprovided repair specifically refer to this 

AD from paragraphs (k)(2) and (n) of 

this AD. Before adopting such a 

requirement, the FAA will coordinate 

with affected DAHs and verify they are 

prepared to implement means to ensure 

that their repair approvals consider the 

unsafe condition addressed in the AD. 

Any such requirements will be adopted 

through the normal AD rulemaking 

process, including notice-and-comment 

procedures, when appropriate. 

We have also decided not to include 

a generic reference to either the 

‘‘delegated agent’’ or the ‘‘DAH with 

State of Design Authority design 

organization approval,’’ but instead we 

will provide the specific delegation 

approval granted by the State of Design 

Authority for the DAH. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data, 

including the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 

13944, March 12, 2014) for correcting 

the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 13944, 

March 12, 2014). 

Related Service Information 

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated 

February 22, 2011. The service 

information describes procedures for 

repetitive inspections and repair of the 

wing rear spar. You can find this 

information at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0138. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 71 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The actions that were required by AD 

95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 

58213, November 27, 1995), and are 

retained in this AD take about 3 workhours per inspection cycle, at an average 

labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the actions that were required by AD 

95–24–04 is $255 per product for each 

inspection cycle. 

We also estimate that it will take 

about 3 work-hours per product to 

comply with the new basic 

requirements of this AD. The average 

labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based 

on these figures, we estimate the cost of 

this AD on U.S. operators to be $18,105 

per inspection cycle, or $255 per 

product for each inspection cycle. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this AD will not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.

gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138; 

or in person at the Docket Management 

Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

AD, the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

95–24–04, Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 

58213, November 27, 1995), and adding 

the following new AD: 

2015–02–19 Airbus: Amendment 39–18086. 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0138; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–020–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective March 11, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 95–24–04, 

Amendment 39–9436 (60 FR 58213, 

November 27, 1995). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) 

of this AD, certificated in any category, all 

manufacturer serial numbers. 

(1) Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, 

B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 

airplanes. 

(2) Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, 

and B4–622 airplanes. 

(3) Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R 

airplanes. 

(4) Model A300 F4–605R airplanes. 

(5) Model A300 C4–605R Variant F 

airplanes. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a determination 

that the inspection compliance time and 

interval must be reduced to allow timely 

detection of cracks and accomplishment of 

applicable repairs if necessary because of 

cracking in the rear spar web of the wings 

between certain ribs due to fatigue-related 

high shear stress. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue-related cracking, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the wing. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B2 

Series Airplanes 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 

39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), 

with no changes. For Model A300 B2 series 

airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 

total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight 

cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective 

date of AD 95–24–04), whichever occurs 

later, perform a high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection to detect cracks at the aft 

spar web of the wings, in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, 

dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 

flight cycles. 

(h) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4– 

103 and B4–2C Airplanes 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 

39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), 

with no changes. For Model A300 B4–103 

and B4–2C airplanes: Prior to the 

accumulation of 19,000 total flight cycles, or 

within 1,400 flight cycles after December 27, 

1995 (the effective date of AD 95–24–04), 

whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC 

inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web 

of the wings, in accordance with Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, dated 

August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 

flight cycles. 

(i) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4– 

200 Airplanes 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 

39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), 

with no changes. For Model A300 B4–200 

airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 17,000 

total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight 

cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective 

date of AD 95–24–04), whichever occurs 

later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect 

cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in 

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles. 

(j) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4– 

601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4– 

622R, and F4–605R Airplanes 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 

39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), 

with no changes. For Model A300 B4–601, 

B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4– 

622R, and F4–605R airplanes: Prior to the 

accumulation of 21,600 flight cycles, perform 

an HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the aft 

spar web of the wings, in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,700 

flight cycles. Accomplishment of the initial 

inspection required by paragraph (l) of this 

AD terminates the requirements of this 

paragraph. 

(k) Retained Repairs 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (e) of AD 95–24–04, Amendment 

39–9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), 

with new actions and with specific 

delegation approval language in paragraph 

(k)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Before the effective date of this AD, if 

any crack is detected during any inspection 

required by paragraphs (g) through (j) of this 

AD: Prior to further flight, repair the crack, 

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

dated August 12, 1994; as applicable; or in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. 

(2) As of the effective date of this AD, if 

any crack is detected during any inspection 

required by paragraphs (g) through (j) of this 

AD: Before further flight, repair the crack, in 

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011; as 

applicable; except if Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–0213, dated August 12, 1994; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011; 

specifies to contact Airbus for an approved 

repair, before further flight, repair the crack 

using a method approved by either the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5915 

Airbus’s EASA design organization approval 

(DOA). 

(l) New Repetitive Inspections 

For airplanes identified in paragraphs 

(c)(2) through (c)(5) of this AD: At the later 

of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and 

(l)(2) of this AD, perform an HFEC inspection 

to detect cracks of the aft face of the wing 

rear spar web in the area adjacent to the build 

slot, in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 

2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable time specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated 

February 22, 2011, except as specified in 

paragraph (m) of this AD. Accomplishment of 

the initial inspection required by this 

paragraph terminates the requirements of 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(1) At the earlier of the applicable times 

specified in the ‘‘Threshold Inspection’’ 

column in table 1 through table 4 of 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, 

dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, 

dated February 22, 2011, specifies ‘‘(FH)’’ 

and ‘‘(FC)’’ in the ‘‘Threshold Inspection’’ 

columns, this AD specifies ‘‘total flight 

hours’’ and ‘‘total flight cycles.’’ The 

inspection threshold for airplanes on which 

Airbus Modification 11130 (Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6063) has been done is 

determined from the point of embodiment of 

Airbus Modification 11130, and is not based 

on total flight cycles. 

(2) At the earlier of the applicable times 

specified in the ‘‘Grace Period’’ column in 

table 1 through table 4 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 

22, 2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 

22, 2011, specifies ‘‘(FH)’’ and ‘‘(FC)’’ in the 

‘‘Grace Period’’ columns, this AD specifies 

‘‘flight hours’’ and ‘‘flight cycles.’’ Where 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, 

specifies a grace period, this AD requires 

compliance within the specified time after 

the effective date of this AD. 

(m) Compliance Time Exceptions 

The repetitive inspection required by 

paragraph (l) of this AD must be 

accomplished at the earlier of the applicable 

times specified in the ‘‘Repeat Interval’’ 

column of table 1 through table 4 of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, 

dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, Revision 04, 

dated February 22, 2011, specifies ‘‘(FC)’’ and 

‘‘(FH)’’ in the ‘‘Repeat Interval’’ columns, this 

AD specifies ‘‘flight hours’’ and ‘‘flight 

cycles.’’ 

(n) New Repair 

If any crack is detected during any 

inspection required by paragraph (l) of this 

AD: Before further flight, repair the crack, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 

2011. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 

2011, specifies to contact Airbus for an 

approved repair: Before further flight, repair 

the crack using a method approved by either 

the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; 

the EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. Repair of 

any cracking, as required by this paragraph, 

does not terminate the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (l) of this AD. 

(o) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraphs (j) and (k) of 

this AD, if those actions were performed 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

dated August 12, 1994. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), (l), and 

(n) of this AD, if those actions were 

performed before the effective date of this AD 

using Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

Revision 03, dated October 25, 1999, which 

is not incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(p) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- 

AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using 

any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office/certificate holding 

district office. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, for any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, the action must be 

accomplished using a method approved by 

the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(q) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0013R1, dated 

February 20, 2013, for related information. 

You may examine the MCAI in the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0138-0003. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference in 

this AD is available at the addresses specified 

in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) of this AD. 

(r) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on effective March 11, 

2015. 

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(4) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on December 27, 1995 (60 

FR 58213, November 27, 1995). 

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0213, 

dated August 12, 1994. 

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6059, 

dated August 12, 1994. 

(5) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness 

Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 

93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@

airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.com. 

(6) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(7) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

15, 2015. 

John P. Piccola, Jr., 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01188 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0344; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–034–AD; Amendment 

39–18095; AD 2015–02–26] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–24– 

13 for certain The Boeing Company 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES