This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

10255 

Vol. 82, No. 27 

Friday, February 10, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–5040; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–192–AD; Amendment 

39–18787; AD 2017–02–08] 

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) for certain 

Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; 

and 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). This AD was prompted 

by a determination that certain 

inspection thresholds and intervals 

must be reduced. This AD requires 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

corrosion of the lower wing root joint, 

and related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. We are issuing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective March 17, 

2017. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of March 17, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, 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. It is also available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2016–5040. 

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–2016– 

5040; 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 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: 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 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain Airbus Model A300 

series airplanes; and 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 published in the Federal 

Register on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19509) 

(‘‘the NPRM’’). 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD 2013–0230, 

dated September 24, 2013 (referred to 

after this as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for certain Airbus Model A300 series 

airplanes; and 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 MCAI 

states: 

Several cases of corrosion on the lower 

wing root joint, located in the wing bottom 

skin inboard and outboard of the external 

lower surface splice, have been reported by 

operators. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could affect the structural integrity 

of the airframe. 

Prompted by these findings, [Direction 

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile] (DGAC) France 

issued AD 1997–006–210 [which 

corresponds to FAA AD 98–21–34, 

Amendment 39–10842 (63 FR 55524, October 

16, 1998)] to require repetitive inspections to 

detect the presence of corrosion and prevent 

crack propagation at the wing bottom skin, 

inboard and outboard of the Rib 1 external 

lower surface splice, between Frame (FR) 40 

and FR47. 

DGAC France * * * issued [an AD] to 

expand the choice of applicable Service 

Bulletins (SB). [The] DGAC France AD * * * 

was issued to allow A300–600 operators to 

use Revision 04 of Airbus SB A300–57–6047, 

converting flight cycles/’’Fatigue rating’’ into 

flight cycles (FC)/flight hours (FH). 

Subsequently, Airbus modification 10599 

was developed to improve the corrosion 

behaviour of the area. This improvement 

allowed refining the inspection programme 

of the A300–600 aeroplane. For postmodification 10599 A300–600 aeroplanes, 

the application of the Maintenance Review 

Board Report (MRBR) inspection tasks was 

deemed sufficient for maintaining an 

adequate level of safety on these aeroplanes. 

Consequently, EASA issued AD 2008–0208 

(later revised), retaining the requirements of 

[a] DGAC France AD * * *, which was 

superseded, to require the use of Airbus SB 

A300–57–6047 Revision 05 for the 

inspections and to exclude post-modification 

10599 A300–600 aeroplanes from the 

Applicability. 

Since EASA AD 2008–0208R1 was issued, 

a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and 

Damage Tolerance analyses have been 

performed in order to substantiate the second 

A300–600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) 

exercise. The results of these analyses 

determined that the threshold and interval 

must be reduced to allow timely detection of 

these cracks and the accomplishment of an 

applicable corrective action. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD takes over and retains the 

requirements for A300 and A300–600 

aeroplanes from EASA AD 2008–0208R1 

(which has been revised, remaining 

applicable only to A310 aeroplanes) and 

requires accomplishment of the inspections 

within the new thresholds and intervals. 

Required actions include repetitive 

detailed inspections for corrosion of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
10256 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

rib 1 external lower surface splice 

between FR40 and FR47, repetitive 

fatigue inspections for cracking of the 

fasteners and on the surface of the 

forward and aft lower surface panels if 

necessary, and corrective actions 

(including application of new protective 

coating, removal of corrosion, and 

measurement of the reworked depth) if 

necessary. 

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–2016– 

5040. 

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. 

Request To Clarify the Applicability 

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested 

that we change the information in 

paragraph (c), Applicability, of the 

proposed AD. UPS explained that 

paragraph (c) of the proposed AD 

defines the airplane models applicable 

to the proposed rule, then has an 

exclusion later in paragraph (g) of the 

proposed AD. UPS reasoned that we 

should simplify by having related 

information in the same location, and 

suggested we combine paragraph (c) and 

paragraph (g) of the proposed AD into 

a single paragraph (c) of the proposed 

AD. 

For the reasons stated by the 

commenter, we agree to include the 

phrase, ‘‘except those on which Airbus 

modification 10599 has been 

incorporated,’’ in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

AD. However, we disagree with moving 

the statement, ‘‘As of the effective date 

of this AD, the actions specified in AD 

98–21–34, Amendment 39–10842 (63 

FR 55524, October 16, 1998) (‘‘AD 98– 

21–34’’) are no longer required’’ from 

paragraph (g) of this AD to paragraph (c) 

of this AD because the Applicability 

should not include this type of 

information; it is appropriately included 

in other regulatory text such as 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Request To Clarify the Headings of 

Paragraphs (h) and (i) of the Proposed 

AD 

UPS requested that we revise the 

headings of paragraphs (h) and (i) of the 

proposed AD because the paragraph 

titles do not reflect what is contained 

within the respective paragraphs. UPS 

explained that paragraph (h) of the 

proposed AD does not contain any 

corrective actions, and paragraph (i) of 

the proposed AD contains fatigue 

inspection requirements. 

For the reasons stated by the 

commenter, we agree and have revised 

the headings of both paragraphs (h) and 

(i) of this AD. 

Request for Grace Period 

UPS stated that upon its review of the 

fatigue inspection requirements, it 

identified that there is not a transition/ 

grace period for airplanes on which 

inspections are already being 

accomplished, but for which the new 

repetitive inspection intervals have 

already been exceeded due to the 

service bulletin interval reductions. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

statement. We had erroneously specified 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011, in 

the compliance time in paragraph 

(i)(2)(ii)(B) of the proposed AD; the 

correct reference is Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6047, Revision 05, 

dated May 27, 2008. We have changed 

paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD to 

include a grace period of 500 flight 

cycles or 1,050 flight hours (whichever 

occurs first), without exceeding the 

compliance time specified in Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 05, dated May 27, 2008. 

Request To Remove Paragraph (j) of the 

Proposed AD 

UPS requested that we delete 

paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. UPS 

explained that paragraphs (j)(1) and 

(j)(2) of the proposed AD identify 

differences between the service bulletin 

requirements specified by the original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) and the 

proposed AD. UPS stated that in its 

review of paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of 

the proposed AD, it does not recognize 

a difference between contacting Airbus 

for corrective action, and using a 

method approved by the FAA for either 

situation. UPS reasoned that, as the 

discrepancy is located on primary 

structure and allowable/approved 

rework limits are exceeded, damage 

tolerance analysis is required as part of 

the repair definition process. UPS adds 

that the existing OEM process, the 

Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS), 

contains instructions for continued 

airworthiness and is approved by an 

EASA-designated airworthiness 

engineer. Based on the existing process 

and procedures in place, UPS does not 

believe that paragraph (j) of the 

proposed AD is necessary. 

We disagree with the request to delete 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Paragraph (j)(1) 

of this AD is required to address certain 

inspection findings. The service 

information specifies that Airbus be 

contacted for corrective action; 

however, paragraph (j)(1) of this AD 

requires that one of the specific 

organizations identified must approve 

those corrective actions. Likewise, 

paragraph (j)(2) of this AD specifies the 

appropriate organizations for 

compliance time determinations. 

Therefore, we have not changed this AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Define Average Flight Time 

(AFT) 

UPS requested that we revise 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to 

match paragraph (i) of AD 2016–07–20, 

Amendment 39–18465 (81 FR 21255, 

April 11, 2016). UPS reasoned that AD 

2016–07–20 clearly defines when the 

AFT value is calculated in subsequent 

repetitive inspection interval 

determinations. UPS explained that 

recent FAA ADs have included using 

AFT to determine repetitive inspection 

intervals, but the definition of 

calculating the AFT value has varied 

among ADs, which further complicates 

compliance across several mandatory 

ADs. 

For the reasons stated by the 

commenter, we have added more 

specific criteria for establishing the AFT 

in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

Request To Include Approval for 

Previous Alternative Methods of 

Compliance (AMOCs) 

UPS requested that we revise 

paragraph (m) of the proposed AD to 

include approval for previous AMOCs. 

UPS explained that other final rules 

include approved AMOCs for prior or 

superseded ADs. UPS explained further 

that it received AMOC approval for AD 

98–21–34 in which the intent is 

embodied within the proposed AD (i.e., 

no additional action for an airplane with 

modification 10599 embodied), and that 

there may be other AMOC approvals 

applicable to the previous AD. 

We agree for the reasons stated by the 

commenter. We added the previous 

AMOC approval information in 

paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this final rule. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 10257 

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 

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–0204, Revision 01, dated April 

2, 1999; and Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6047, Revision 06, dated 

October 17, 2011. This service 

information describes procedures for 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

corrosion of the rib 1 external lower 

surface splice between FR40 and FR47, 

repetitive fatigue inspections for 

cracking of the fasteners and on the 

surface of the forward and aft lower 

surface panels if necessary, and 

corrective actions (including application 

of new protective coating, removal of 

corrosion, and measurement of the 

reworked depth) if necessary. These 

documents are distinct since they apply 

to different airplane models. 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 29 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it would take about 8 

work-hours per product to comply with 

the 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 

$19,720, or $680 per product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 8 work-hours, for a cost of $680 

per product. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need these actions. 

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 

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. 

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): 

2017–02–08 Airbus: Amendment 39–18787; 

Docket No. FAA–2016–5040; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–192–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective March 17, 2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD affects AD 98–21–34, Amendment 

39–10842 (63 FR 55524, October 16, 1998) 

(‘‘AD 98–21–34’’). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, 

certificated in any category, identified in 

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

(1) All 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, 

B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, F4–605R, F4– 

622R, and C4–605R Variant F airplanes, 

except those on which Airbus modification 

10599 has been incorporated. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

corrosion on the lower wing root joint 

located in the wing bottom skin inboard and 

outboard of the external lower surface splice, 

and the determination that certain existing 

inspection thresholds and intervals must be 

reduced. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct corrosion and cracking on the lower 

wing root joint, which could reduce the 

structural integrity of the airframe. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Airplanes Excluded From the 

Requirements of AD 98–21–34 and This AD 

For Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, 

B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, F4–605R, F4– 

622R, and C4–605R Variant F airplanes, on 

which Airbus modification 10599 has been 

incorporated: As of the effective date of this 

AD, the actions specified in AD 98–21–34 are 

no longer required. No action is required by 

this AD. 

(h) Repetitive Inspections 

Within 60 months since the airplane’s first 

flight, or within 60 months since 

accomplishment of the last inspection 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–0204 or A300–57–6047, whichever occurs 

later: Do a detailed inspection for corrosion 

of the rib 1 external lower surface splice 

between frame (FR)40 and FR47, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as 

applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter 

at intervals not to exceed 60 months. 

Accomplishment of the initial inspection 

required by this paragraph terminates the 

requirements of AD 98–21–34 for Model 

A300 and A300–600 series airplanes. 

(i) Corrective Actions, Repetitive Fatigue 

Inspections, and Repair 

If any corrosion is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (h) of this 

AD, do the actions specified in paragraph 

(i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Before further flight, do all applicable 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–0204, Revision 01, 

dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6047, Revision 06, dated 

October 17, 2011; as applicable; except as 

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

(2) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, 

except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this 

AD: Do fatigue inspections to detect cracks of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
10258 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

the fasteners and on the surface of the 

forward and aft lower surface panels, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as 

applicable. Repeat the fatigue inspections 

thereafter at the applicable interval specified 

in paragraph B.(5) of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 

1999; or Figure A–FBGAA, Sheet 01, of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as 

applicable; except as required by paragraph 

(j)(2) of this AD. If any cracking is found 

during any fatigue inspection required by 

this paragraph: Before further flight, repair 

using a method approved by the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus’s 

EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). 

(i) For Model A300 series airplanes: Do the 

initial inspection at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph B.(5) of Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–0204, Revision 01, dated 

April 2, 1999. 

(ii) For Model A300–600 series airplanes: 

Do the initial inspection at the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and 

(i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD. 

(A) At the applicable time specified in 

Figure A–FBGAA, Sheet 01, of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, Revision 06, 

dated October 17, 2011. 

(B) Within 500 flight cycles or 1,050 flight 

hours after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first, without exceeding the 

compliance time specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6047, Revision 05, dated 

May 27, 2008. 

(j) Exceptions to Service Bulletin 

Specifications 

(1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; 

specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate 

corrective action, this AD requires repair 

before further flight using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. 

(2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 

2011, specifies to contact Airbus for the 

appropriate threshold or repetitive interval, 

this AD requires that the compliance time be 

determined using a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. 

(k) Calculating Average Flight Time (AFT) 

For the purposes of paragraph (i)(2) of this 

AD, the AFT must be established as specified 

in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this 

AD. 

(1) For the initial inspection, the AFT is 

the total accumulated flight hours, counted 

from take-off to touch-down, divided by the 

total accumulated flight cycles at the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) For the first repeated inspection 

interval, the AFT is the total accumulated 

flight hours divided by the total accumulated 

flight cycles at the time of the inspection 

threshold. 

(3) For all inspection intervals onward, the 

AFT is the flight hours accumulated between 

the two most recent inspections divided by 

the flight cycles accumulated between the 

two most recent inspections. 

(l) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

inspections and corrective actions required 

by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those 

actions were performed before the effective 

date of this AD using the applicable service 

information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) 

through (l)(3) of this AD. 

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 02, dated April 2, 1999. 

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 03, dated September 28, 1999. 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 05, dated May 27, 2008. 

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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. 

(i) 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. 

(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 

98–21–34 are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h) 

and (i) of this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: 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. 

(n) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 

2013–0230, dated September 24, 2013, 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–2016–5040. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

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

(o) 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 A300–57–0204, 

Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999. 

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6047, 

Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011. 

(3) 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. 

(4) 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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

18, 2017. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–01776 Filed 2–9–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–6670; Directorate 

Identifier 2016–NM–006–AD; Amendment 

39–18789; AD 2017–02–10] 

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) 2013–19– 

04 for certain The Boeing Company 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and 

–900 series airplanes. AD 2013–19–04 

required repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the skin around the fasteners 

common to the ends of certain bulkhead 

chords, and related investigative actions 

and corrective actions if necessary; and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES