46932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(m) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 

2011–0142, dated July 25, 2011, and the 

service information identified in paragraphs 

(m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD for 

related information. 

(1) Airbus TR 4.02.00/20, dated May 3, 

2004, to the Airbus A318/319/320/321 AFM. 

(2) Airbus TR TR112, Issue 1.1, dated 

November 29, 2010, to the Airbus A318/319/ 

320/321 AFM. 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–71–1030, 

dated February 27, 2003. 

(n) 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. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on September 28, 2011 (76 

FR 56279, September 13, 2011). 

(i) Airbus Temporary Revision TR112, 

Issue 1.1, dated November 29, 2010, to the 

Airbus A318/319/320/321 (AFM) Airplane 

Flight Manual. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(4) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on August 13, 2004 (69 FR 

45243, July 29, 2004). 

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–71–1030, 

dated February 27, 2003. 

(ii) Airbus Temporary Revision 4.02.00/20, 

dated May 3, 2004, to the Airbus A318/319/ 

320/321 AFM (Airplane Flight Manual). 

(5) For Airbus service information 

identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 

Airworthiness Office—EAS, 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.airwortheas@airbus.com; Internet http:// 

www.airbus.com. 

(6) You may review copies of the 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 also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at an NARA facility, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 

2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18625 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1322; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–211–AD; Amendment 

39–17141; AD 2012–15–12] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracks of the underwing longeron 

fittings in the wing center section. This 

AD requires repetitive inspections of the 

underwing longeron fitting for cracking, 

and related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct such cracking, 

which could result in loss of the 

primary load path between the fuselage 

and the wing box, and consequent 

catastrophic damage to the wing box 

and failure of the wing. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

11, 2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of September 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; phone: 206–544–5000, extension 

1; fax: 206–766–5680; Internet: https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

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

Document 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: 

Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6577; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

Berhane.Alazar@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on December 19, 2011 (76 FR 

78574). That NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspections of the underwing 

longeron fitting for cracking, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (76 FR 78574, 

December 19, 2011), and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Use Revised Service 

Information 

Boeing, UPS, and United Airlines 

(United) requested that the NPRM (76 

FR 78574, December 19, 2011) use the 

revised service information, which is 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 

2012. (The NPRM referred to Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 767–57A0126, 

dated August 12, 2011, as revised by 

Boeing Service Bulletin 767–57A0126, 

Revision 1, dated November 9, 2011, as 

the appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

proposed requirements.) Boeing stated 

that the correction of the airplane 

variable effectivity table does not 

change the intent of the NPRM, because 

applicability paragraph (c) of the NPRM 

states that ‘‘This AD applies to all The 

Boeing Company Model 767–200, –300, 

–300F and –400ER series airplanes; 

certified in any category.’’ Boeing also 

stated that including Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–57A0126, Revision 

2, dated March 12, 2012, in the AD 

might prevent confusion for operators of 

these airplanes. 

We agree with this request because 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 

2012, clarifies inspection areas and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 46933 

corrects various typographical errors. 

Since the NPRM (76 FR 78574, 

December 19, 2011) applied to all Model 

767–200, –300, –300F and –400ER 

series airplanes, the corrected effectivity 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 

2012, does not affect the applicability of 

this AD. We have changed the final rule 

to reference Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–57A0126, Revision 2, 

dated March 12, 2012. We have also 

added new paragraph (i) to the final rule 

to give credit for actions accomplished 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

57A0126, dated August 12, 2011, as 

revised by Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

57A0126, Revision 1, dated November 

9, 2011, and re-identified subsequent 

paragraphs accordingly. 

Request To Address Effects of NPRM 

(76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011) on 

Winglets 

Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) 

commented that it has reviewed the 

NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 19, 

2011), and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

767–57A0126, dated August 12, 2011, 

and has determined that the installation 

of winglets, per Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01920SE, ‘‘does not 

affect them.’’ We infer that APB means 

the installation of these winglets does 

not affect accomplishing the NPRM. 

American Airlines (American) stated 

that the NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 

19, 2011) does not refer to any effects 

this inspection or potential repair would 

have on aircraft equipped with APB 

winglets. American stated that the 

NPRM should include a reference to 

procedures or subsequent actions which 

may need to be taken over and above the 

repair, if a repair was to be installed on 

an airplane with such winglets. 

We agree that the AD should clarify 

procedures to address these APB 

winglets. We have added new Note 1 to 

paragraph (c) of this AD to state that 

installation of STC ST01920SE (http:// 

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory-and-GuidanceLibrary/rgstc.nsf/0/082838ee177

dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/

ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the 

ability to accomplish the actions 

required by this AD. Therefore, for 

airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is 

installed, a ’’change in product’’ AMOC 

approval request is not necessary to 

comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 

39.17. For all other AMOC requests, the 

operator must request approval 

according to paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Request To Increase Compliance Times 

United suggested the initial 

inspection compliance time of within 

3,000 flight cycles or 7,000 flight hours, 

whichever occurs first, for airplanes that 

have accumulated over 70,000 total 

flight hours but less than 20,000 total 

flight cycles, be to changed to within 

6,000 flight cycles or 14,000 flight 

hours, whichever occurs first. United 

also stated that, as an alternative for any 

airplane with less than 20,000 total 

flight cycles and less than 90,000 total 

flight hours, the initial inspection 

threshold of ‘‘within 3,000 flight cycles’’ 

be imposed. United stated that imposing 

the 3,000-flight-cycle or 7,000-flighthour compliance times, whichever 

occurs first, might be more suitable for 

those airplanes with very high flight 

cycles, such as over 30,000 or 35,000 

total flight cycles. 

United stated it has reviewed its 

maintenance history and the most 

recent inspection results of maintenance 

planning data (MPD) structural tasks 

(53–622–00 and 53–632–00) on four of 

its high-time airplanes. United stated it 

had no findings, and based on its 

maintenance history, it considers the 

initial inspection threshold of 7,000 

flight hours or 3,000 flight cycles, 

whichever occurs first, on any airplane 

with more than 70,000 total flight hours 

to be overly aggressive for those 

operators, like United, that fly airplanes 

on long routes with very few flight 

cycles. With average flight hours of 

approximately 4,500 and approximately 

650 flight cycles per year, United stated 

that the 7,000-flight-hour initial 

inspection threshold will provide only 

an approximate 18-month window of 

opportunity to accomplish the initial 

inspection on many of its airplanes. 

United asserts that the 18-month 

threshold does not provide enough time 

to schedule this inspection on this many 

airplanes at a heavy maintenance 

environment, which is when it should 

be accomplished. 

We do not agree, because fatigue 

analysis is based on statistical methods. 

Statistics from four airplanes using only 

the MPD general visual inspections, 

without the benefit of an HFEC 

inspection, does not provide sufficient 

statistical justification to increase the 

compliance time. In developing an 

appropriate compliance time for this 

AD, we considered the unsafe condition 

as well as the recommendations of the 

manufacturer, and the practical aspect 

of accomplishing the required 

inspection within an interval of time 

that corresponds to the normal 

maintenance schedules of most affected 

operators. We have not changed the 

final rule in this regard. 

Request To Revise On-Condition Costs 

UPS stated that the estimated onconditions parts cost specified in the 

NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 19, 

2011) only reflect the cost for one wing. 

We agree. We have confirmed that one 

top-kit is required for each wing, and 

that the parts costs for both wings 

ranges up to $14,290. We have revised 

the estimated on-condition costs in the 

final rule to include the cost required 

for both wings. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 

78574, December 19, 2011) for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 78574, 

December 19, 2011). 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Interim Action 

We consider this AD interim action. 

The design approval holder is currently 

developing a modification that will 

address the unsafe condition identified 

in this AD. Once this modification is 

developed, approved, and available, we 

might consider additional rulemaking. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 417 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Repetitive HFEC inspection ... 3 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $255 per inspection cycle.

$0 $255 per inspection cycle ...... $106,335 per inspection 

cycle. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary inspections and 

replacements that would be required 

based on the results of the inspection. 

We have no way of determining the 

number of aircraft that might need these 

on-condition actions. 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Tension bolt hole and front spar lower chord HFEC inspection 

and fitting replacement.

104 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $8,840.

Up to $14,290 ........... Up to $23,130. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for cracking repairs specified 

in this AD. 

Authority for this Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2012–15–12 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–17141; Docket No. 

FAA–2011–1322; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–211–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective September 11, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: 

Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate 

(STC) ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/ 

0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/

$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the 

ability to accomplish the actions required by 

this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which 

STC ST01920SE is installed, a ’’change in 

product’’ alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to 

comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 

39.17. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

of the underwing longeron fittings in the 

wing center section. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct such cracking, which 

could result in loss of the primary load path 

between the fuselage and the wing box, and 

consequent catastrophic damage to the wing 

box and failure of the wing. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspections, Related Investigative 

Actions, and Corrective Actions 

Except as provided by paragraphs (h)(2) 

and (h)(3) of this AD, at the applicable 

compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–57A0126, Revision 2, dated 

March 12, 2012: Do a high frequency eddy 

current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking 

of the underwing longeron fitting; and do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–57A0126, Revision 2, 

dated March 12, 2012, except as provided by 

paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable 

related investigative and corrective actions 

before further flight. Repeat the inspection of 

the underwing longeron fitting thereafter at 

the applicable compliance time and intervals 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–57A0126, 

Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012. 

(h) Exceptions to Paragraph (g) of This AD 

(1) If, during accomplishment of the related 

investigative action required by this AD, any 

cracking is found and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–57A0126, Revision 2, dated 

March 12, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing 

for repair instructions: Before further flight, 

do the repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(2) Where Paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–57A0126, 

Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012, specifies 

a compliance time ‘‘after the original issue 

date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time ‘‘after the effective date of 

this AD.’’ 

(3) The Condition column of Paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–57A0126, Revision 2, dated 

March 12, 2012, refers to total flight cycles 

and total flight hours ‘‘as of the original issue 

date of this service bulletin.’’ However, this 

AD applies to the airplanes with the 

specified total flight cycles or total flight 

hours ‘‘as of the effective date of this AD.’’ 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 46935 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–57A0126, dated August 

12, 2011, as revised by Boeing Service 

Bulletin 767–57A0126, Revision 1, dated 

November 9, 2011; both of which are not 

incorporated by reference. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

to make those findings. For a repair method 

to be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(k) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: Berhane.Alazar@faa.gov. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the following service information 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) You must use the following service 

information to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; phone: 

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

5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.

com. 

(4) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

(5) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/

cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 

2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18578 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0414; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–210–AD; Amendment 

39–17138; AD 2012–15–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) certain 

Airbus Model A310–203, –221, and 

–222 airplanes. This AD was prompted 

by the manufacturer re-classifying slat 

extension eccentric bolts as principal 

structural elements with replacement 

due at or before their calculated fatigue 

lives. This AD replaces certain slat 

extension eccentric bolts with new 

bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

fatigue cracking, which could result in 

the loss of structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

September 11, 2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of September 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 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 include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 25930). 

That NPRM proposed to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

Slat extension eccentric bolts have been reclassified as Principal Structural Elements 

(PSE). As a result, associated fatigue lives 

will be published in the Airbus A310 

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 

1 and bolts must be replaced at or before 

their calculated fatigue lives. 

The slat extension eccentric bolt Part 

Number (P/N) A5786451220800 installed at 

slat 2, track 6 of the left hand (LH) and right 

hand (RH) wings is manufactured by 

SONACA, but some bolts with the same P/ 

N, manufactured by FOKKER, may have been 

installed on A310–200 series aeroplanes and 

are identical in appearance. The calculated 

fatigue life of the FOKKER bolt is lower than 

that of the SONACA equivalent bolt. 

The difference between the FOKKER and 

SONACA bolt cannot be distinguished by a 

visual inspection. To remedy this, the 

SONACA bolt part number was changed from 

P/N A5786451220800 to P/N 

A5784307920000. 

Failure to replace the bolts within the new 

fatigue life limits constitutes an unsafe 

condition. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD requires the replacement of all 

slat extension eccentric bolts, P/N 

A5786451220800, with slat extension 

eccentric bolts P/N A5784307920000 at the 

slat 2 tracks 4, 6 and 7 positions, as well as 

at the slat 3 track 8 position, on both LH and 

RH wings. 

In addition, it is required to replace the slat 

extension eccentric bolt P/N A57843624200 

at slat 2 track 5 with a bolt P/N 

A57843624202. 

Required actions also include a 

concurrent inspection of the removed 

bolts for cracking. If cracking is found, 

certain bolts at slat 2 track 5 are 

replaced with new bolts before further 

flight. If cracking is not found, certain 

bolts at slat 2 track 5 are replaced with 

new bolts at 35,900 total flight cycles or 

71,800 total flight hours, whichever 

occurs first. The unsafe condition is 

fatigue cracking, which could result in 

the loss of structural integrity of the 

airplane. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM (77 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES