16382 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 

In addition to replacing ‘‘midget’’ 

with ‘‘petite’’ or removing ‘‘midget,’’ 

AMS is also removing dual 

nomenclature in U.S. Standards for 

Grades of Canned Lima Beans, U.S. 

Standards for Grades of Canned 

Mushrooms, and U.S. Standards for 

Grades of Green Olives. More recently 

developed standards use a single term, 

such as ‘‘U.S. Grade A’’ or ‘‘U.S. Grade 

B,’’ to describe each level of quality 

within a grade standard. Older grade 

standards used dual nomenclature, such 

as ‘‘U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy,’’ ‘‘U.S. 

Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard,’’ or 

‘‘U.S. Grade B or U.S. Choice,’’ and 

‘‘U.S. Grade C or U.S. Standard,’’ to 

describe the same level of quality. The 

terms ‘‘U.S. Fancy,’’ ‘‘U.S. Extra 

Standard,’’ ‘‘U.S. Choice,’’ and ‘‘U.S. 

Standard’’ will be removed and the 

terms ‘‘U.S. Grade A,’’ ‘‘U.S. Grade B,’’ 

and ‘‘U.S. Grade C’’ will be used 

exclusively. 

Finally, AMS is making editorial 

changes to these grade standards to 

update the name of a table to better 

reflect its content, a grade designation in 

a scoresheet to align with language used 

throughout the standards, the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) references 

where applicable, and to remove 

obsolete addresses for viewing or 

obtaining color standards. Information 

on obtaining color standards is available 

in the Fresh and Processed Equipment 

Catalog on the AMS website at https:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/ 

how-purchase-equipment-and-visualaids. These revisions will result in a 

consistent format across grade standards 

(75 FR 43141). The following table 

summarizes the changes made by AMS: 

U.S. standards for 

grades of 

Effective 

date Remove or replace ‘‘Midget’’ Other proposed revisions 

Canned Lima Beans 3/20/60 Replace with ‘‘Petite’’ in Table II in Sizes 

of canned lima beans section.

Change level of quality designations to single terms in the 

Grades of canned lima beans and Color sections. 

Correct CFR citation for standard of identity to 21 CFR 

155.200 in the Identity section. 

Replace Processed Products information and address with 

‘‘USDA Headquarters in Washington, DC’’ in the General 

section. 

Canned Mushrooms 4/7/62 Replace with ‘‘petite’’ in the Sizes of 

canned mushrooms in the styles of 

whole and buttons section.

Change level of quality designations to single terms in the 

Grades of canned mushrooms section. 

Correct CFR citation for standard of identity to 21 CFR 

155.200 in the Product description section. 

Green Olives ............ 9/8/67 Remove from Table I in the Sizes of 

whole style green olives section.

Change level of quality designations to single terms in the 

Grades of green olives and Uniformity of size sections and 

Tables IV and V in the Absence of defects section. 

Change ‘‘D’’ to ‘‘Sstd’’ in the Score sheet for green olives 

section. 

Pickles ..................... 4/22/91 Replace with ‘‘Petite’’ in Table II in the 

Sizes of whole pickles section and 

Table VI in the Requirements for 

grade section.

Change the title of Table III from ‘‘Recommended Pickle Ingredients All Styles Except Relish’’ to ‘‘Recommended 

Minimum Quantity of Pickle Ingredients All Styles Except 

Relish.’’ 

The revisions provide a common 

language for trade and better reflect the 

current marketing of fruits and 

vegetables. 

Comments 

On August 13, 2018, AMS published 

a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 

39917) soliciting comments on replacing 

or removing the term ‘‘midget’’ from 

each of the grade standards identified in 

this document, as well as replacing the 

two-term grading system with a single 

term to describe each quality level in 

U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned 

Lima Beans, U.S. Standards for Grades 

of Canned Mushrooms, and U.S. 

Standards for Grades of Green Olives. 

Nine comments were received from the 

general public by the end of the public 

comment period on October 12, 2018. 

One comment favored replacing or 

removing the term ‘‘midget,’’ but 

supported using ‘‘extra small’’ instead of 

‘‘petite’’ for pickles since the other sizes 

are small, medium, large, and extralarge. The term ‘‘petite’’ was proposed 

by the industry because there are three 

lesser sizes before the ‘‘small’’ size 

designation: midget, small gherkin, and 

large gherkin. AMS is revising the 

standard for pickles with the term 

‘‘petite.’’ One comment favored 

removing ‘‘midget’’ but did not support 

addressing dual nomenclature in this 

notice. AMS will address dual 

nomenclature at the same time ‘‘midget’’ 

is replaced or removed since these are 

minor non-controversial changes that 

will update the standards to more 

accurately represent today’s marketing 

practices and addressing both is more 

efficient than undertaking separate 

rulemakings on each issue. One 

comment was outside the scope of this 

revision to U.S. grade standards. The 

remaining six comments favored 

replacing or removing the term 

‘‘midget’’ in the grade standards. 

Based on the information gathered, 

AMS is replacing or removing ‘‘midget,’’ 

removing dual nomenclature, and 

making editorial changes to the 

aforementioned U.S. Standards for 

Grades. These revisions bring the grade 

standards in line with other recently 

amended standards and current 

terminology, and update the standards 

to more accurately represent today’s 

marketing practices. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. 

Dated: April 16, 2019. 

Bruce Summers, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2019–07899 Filed 4–18–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0899; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–099–AD; Amendment 

39–19615; AD 2019–07–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

Editorial Note: Rule document 2019–07587 

was originally published on pages 15949 

through 15952 in the issue of Wednesday, 

April 17, 2019. In that publication, on page 

15951, in the title of the Airworthiness 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 16383 

Directive, ‘‘–04’’ was inadvertently left out. 

The corrected document is republished in its 

entirety. 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation 

by the design approval holder (DAH) 

indicating that the inner skin of the lap 

splices, at the lower fastener row, is 

subject to scratch cracks that may 

interact with widespread fatigue damage 

(WFD). This AD requires a general 

visual inspection (GVI) of certain lap 

splice inspection areas for any repair 

common to the fuselage skin lap splice 

dual frequency eddy current (DFEC) 

inspection areas, repetitive DFEC 

inspections of certain lap splice inner 

skins for any crack, and applicable oncondition actions. We are issuing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective May 22, 

2019. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of May 22, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Contractual & Data Services 

(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 

110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

phone: 562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

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

information on the availability of this 

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

It is also available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0899. 

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–2018– 

0899; or in person at Docket Operations 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this final rule, 

the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

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: 

David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles 

ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; 

phone: 562–627–5224; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: david.truong@faa.gov. 

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 The Boeing Company 

Model 757 airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 15, 2018 (83 FR 51887). The 

NPRM was prompted by an evaluation 

by the DAH indicating that the inner 

skin of the lap splices, at the lower 

fastener row, is subject to scratch cracks 

that may interact with WFD. The NPRM 

proposed to require a general visual 

inspection of certain lap splice 

inspection areas for any repair common 

to the fuselage skin lap splice inspection 

areas, repetitive DFEC inspections of a 

certain lap splice inner skin for any 

crack, and applicable on-condition 

actions. 

We are issuing this AD to address 

scratches that can grow into scratch 

cracks, which could interact with multisite damage (MSD) fastener hole fatigue 

cracking. This condition, if not 

addressed, could result in accelerated 

crack growth rate, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this final rule. 

The following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment 

of the Proposed Actions 

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that 

accomplishing Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not 

affect the actions specified in the 

proposed AD. 

We concur with the commenter. We 

have redesignated paragraph (c) of the 

proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this 

AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this 

AD to state that installation of STC 

ST01518SE does not affect the ability to 

accomplish the actions required by this 

AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which 

STC ST01518SE 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. 

Request for Clarification of the Affected 

Airplanes 

Boeing requested that we clarify the 

affected airplanes in the NPRM. Boeing 

pointed out that the SUMMARY of the 

NPRM currently states ‘‘for certain The 

Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes,’’ 

and requested that we change the 

SUMMARY of the NPRM to state ‘‘for 

all The Boeing Company Model 757 

airplanes.’’ 

We acknowledge this typographical 

error. Boeing Alert Requirements 

Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 

21, 2018, specifies ‘‘all The Boeing 

Company Model 757 airplanes,’’ and 

our intent was to match the service 

information. We have revised the 

SUMMARY and paragraph (c)(1) of this 

AD accordingly. 

Request To Revise the Safety Issue 

Boeing requested that we clarify the 

nature of the safety issue. Boeing 

pointed out that the SUMMARY of the 

NPRM suggests that the safety issue is 

limited to WFD. Boeing also mentioned 

that lap splice WFD for the Model 757 

fleet is already addressed by AD 2018– 

18–07, Amendment 39–19386 (83 FR 

45037, September 5, 2018) (‘‘AD 2018– 

18–07’’). Boeing specified that the safety 

issue that the NPRM is mitigating is the 

potential for interaction between MSD 

and scratch cracks on the inner skin of 

the lap splices. Boeing requested that 

we revise the ‘‘prompted by’’ statement 

in the SUMMARY of the NPRM to 

specify ‘‘. . . at the lower fastener row 

is subject to scratch cracks that may 

interact with WFD.’’ 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concern. As written, the SUMMARY of 

the NPRM can be misconstrued to 

specify duplicate actions (lap splice 

WFD) already addressed by AD 2018– 

18–07. The intent of this AD action is 

to address the potential for interaction 

between MSD and scratch cracks on the 

inner skin of the lap splices. Therefore, 

we have revised the SUMMARY and 

paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly. 

Request for Clarification of the GVI 

Inspection Area 

Boeing requested that we clarify the 

GVI inspection area. Boeing mentioned 

that the SUMMARY and ‘‘Related 

Service Information Under 1 CFR part 

51’’ section of the NPRM each describe 

a GVI common to the fuselage skin lap 

splice inspection areas. Boeing pointed 

out that the wording seems confusing 

and could be perceived as a circular 

description (i.e., that the inspection area 

is common to the inspection area). 

Boeing also pointed out that there is no 

mention of the commonality of the 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
16384 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 

DFEC inspection areas and the GVI 

inspection areas. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reasons provided. We 

have revised the SUMMARY and 

‘‘Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR part 51’’ section of this AD 

accordingly. 

Request for Clarification of the Affected 

Inspection Area 

Boeing requested that we clarify the 

affected inspection area. Boeing 

mentioned that the SUMMARY of the 

NPRM states ‘‘. . . DFEC inspections of 

a certain lap splice inner skin. . . .’’ 

Boeing pointed out that this statement 

suggests that only one skin panel is 

affected. Boeing requested that we 

revise the SUMMARY of the NPRM to 

state ‘‘. . . DFEC inspections of certain 

lap splice inner skins. . . .’’ 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reasons provided. We 

have revised the SUMMARY of this AD 

accordingly. 

Request To Clarify That the Inspections 

Are Not Limited to Lap Splices at 

Stringer (S) 14 

Boeing requested that we clarify that 

the inspections are not limited to lap 

splices at S–14. Boeing mentioned that 

the ‘‘Related Service Information Under 

1 CFR part 51’’ section of the NPRM 

describes the service information as 

procedures for ‘‘. . . repetitive DFEC 

inspections of the S–14 lap splice inner 

skin for any crack. . . .’’ Boeing pointed 

out that the description does not 

mention any of the other lap splice 

stringer locations where the inspections 

are required. Boeing requested that we 

revise the description to specify ‘‘. . . 

repetitive DFEC inspections of certain 

lap splice inner skins for any crack. 

. . .’’ 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reasons provided. We 

have revised the ‘‘Related Service 

Information Under 1 CFR part 51’’ 

section of this AD accordingly. 

Request To Revise the Costs of 

Compliance of the NPRM 

Boeing requested that we clarify the 

Costs of Compliance of the NPRM. 

Boeing mentioned that the NPRM 

specified 451 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

Boing specified that its records show 

there to be 561 airplanes of U.S. registry 

that would be affected by the NPRM. 

Boeing also pointed out that the 

difference in affected airplanes 

significantly increases the overall costs 

to the U.S. registered Model 757 fleet. 

We agree that Boeing records account 

for U.S. registered airplanes that the 

FAA did not include in the NPRM, and 

that this number may be a more accurate 

representation of the U.S. registered 

airplanes. We did not originally include 

airplanes in our cost estimate that are in 

storage or not currently active. We have 

updated the Costs of Compliance 

section of this AD to reflect the specific 

number of U.S. registered airplanes and 

the revised cost on U.S. operators. 

Request To Include Required for 

Compliance (RC) Language 

Boeing requested that we revise 

paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to 

include RC language. Boeing mentioned 

that this change would clarify which 

actions are mandated. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary, however, we disagree with 

the request to include RC language in 

paragraph (i) of this AD. As noted in 

Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 

757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, 

if an RB is mandated by an AD, then all 

applicable requirements specified in the 

RB must be done. We did not include 

RC language because this AD requires 

accomplishment of all the actions 

specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 

RB, dated May 21, 2018. Therefore, we 

have not changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Exclude Airplanes With 

Certain Modifications 

FedEx and VT Mobile Aerospace 

Engineering (MAE) Inc. requested that 

we revise the NPRM to specify that 

inspections, methods, and compliance 

times regarding certain lap splices 

specified in Boeing Alert Requirements 

Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 

21, 2018, be omitted for the FedEx fleet 

of Model 757–200 airplanes. FedEx 

mentioned that its fleet has been 

modified using certain VT MAE Inc. 

supplemental type certificates (STCs), 

and is no longer configured as passenger 

airplanes. FedEx pointed out that its 

Model 757–200 fleet is identified as 

Groups 1, 4, and 5 in Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 

RB, dated May 21, 2018. VT MAE Inc. 

pointed out that because of the change 

in configuration related to the VT MAE 

Inc. STCs, certain lap splice inspection 

areas have been removed and those 

airplanes are unable to fully comply 

with the inspection procedures 

specified in Boeing Alert Requirements 

Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 

21, 2018. VT MAE Inc. proposed certain 

exceptions to the service information in 

the final rule. The proposed exceptions 

are for the lap splice inspections 

affected by the change in configuration 

related to the VT MAE Inc. STCs. FedEx 

requested that, in lieu of requesting an 

AMOC after publication, we include the 

exceptions proposed by VT MAE Inc. in 

the final rule. 

We acknowledge the commenters’ 

remarks, however, we disagree with the 

request to include exceptions in this 

final rule that are specific to certain 

airplanes operated by FedEx. There are 

many different airplane configurations 

across multiple operators, and ADs 

cannot accommodate all possible 

configurations. However, under the 

provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, 

we will consider requests for approval 

of an AMOC that addresses the VT MAE 

Inc. STCs, if appropriate data are 

submitted to substantiate that the 

method would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. We have not changed 

this AD in this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this 

final rule 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 

addressing the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this final rule. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 

RB, dated May 21, 2018. This service 

information describes procedures for a 

GVI of certain lap splice inspection 

areas for any repair common to the 

fuselage skin lap splice DFEC inspection 

areas, repetitive DFEC inspections of 

certain lap splice inner skins for any 

crack, and applicable on-condition 

actions. 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 561 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate 

the following costs to comply with this 

AD: 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 16385 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

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

General visual inspection ....... Up to 6 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = up to $510.

$0 Up to $510 ............................. Up to $286,110. 

Repetitive DFEC inspections Up to 124 work-hours × $85 

per hour = up to $10,540 

per inspection cycle.

0 Up to $10,540 per inspection 

cycle.

Up to $5,912,940 per 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. 

This AD is issued in accordance with 

authority delegated by the Executive 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service, 

as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. 

In accordance with that order, issuance 

of ADs is normally a function of the 

Compliance and Airworthiness 

Division, but during this transition 

period, the Executive Director has 

delegated the authority to issue ADs 

applicable to transport category 

airplanes and associated appliances to 

the Director of the System Oversight 

Division. 

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): 

2019–07–04 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–19615; Docket No. 

FAA–2018–0899; Product Identifier 

2018–NM–099–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective May 22, 2019. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, 

and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

(2) Installation of Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect 

the ability to accomplish the actions required 

by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which 

STC ST01518SE 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 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) indicating 

that the inner skin of the lap splices, at the 

lower fastener row, is subject to scratch 

cracks that may interact with widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this 

AD to address scratches that can grow into 

scratch cracks, which could interact with 

multi-site damage (MSD) fastener hole fatigue 

cracking. This condition, if not addressed, 

could result in accelerated crack growth rate, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Required Actions 

Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this 

AD: At the applicable times specified in the 

‘‘Compliance’’ paragraph of Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, 

dated May 21, 2018, do all applicable actions 

identified in, and in accordance with, the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, 

dated May 21, 2018. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: 

Guidance for accomplishing the actions 

required by this AD can be found in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 757–53A0111, dated 

May 21, 2018, which is referred to in Boeing 

Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 

RB, dated May 21, 2018. 

(h) Exceptions to Service Information 

Specifications 

(1) For purposes of determining 

compliance with the requirements of this AD: 

Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 

757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, uses 

the phrase ‘‘the original issue date of 

Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB,’’ 

this AD requires using ‘‘the effective date of 

this AD.’’ 

(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements 

Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 

2018, specifies contacting Boeing for 

alternative inspections or repair instructions, 

this AD requires alternative inspection or 

repair before further flight using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(3) Inspections performed in accordance 

with Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 

757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, are 

not necessary in areas where existing FAA 

approved repairs cover the affected 

inspection areas; provided the outermost 

repair doubler extends a minimum of three 

rows of fasteners above and below the 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
16386 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 

original group of lap splice fasteners subject 

to the inspection. Damage tolerance 

inspections specified for existing repairs 

must continue. Inspections outside of the 

repaired boundaries are still required as 

specified in Boeing Alert Requirements 

Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 

2018. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 

14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your 

principal inspector or local Flight Standards 

District Office, as appropriate. If sending 

information directly to the manager of the 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of 

this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-LAACO-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, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. 

To be approved, the repair method, 

modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification basis of 

the airplane, and the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO 

Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627– 

5224; fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

david.truong@faa.gov. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

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

(k) 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) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 

757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., 

MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

phone: 562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

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

information on the availability of this 

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

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

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

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on 

April 8, 2019. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. R1–2019–07587 Filed 4–18–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1301–00–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0903; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–113–AD; Amendment 

39–19616; AD 2019–07–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016–19– 

14, which applied to certain Airbus SAS 

Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; 

Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, 

–232, and –233 airplanes; and Model 

A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, 

–213, –231, and –232 airplanes. AD 

2016–19–14 required repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the 10VU 

rack fitting lugs, and repair of any 

cracking. Since we issued AD 2016–19– 

14, we have determined that the unsafe 

condition may exist on additional 

airplanes. This AD continues to require 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any 

cracking. This AD also adds airplanes to 

the applicability. We are issuing this AD 

to address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective May 24, 

2019. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of May 24, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office— 

EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 

2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

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

61 93 44 51; email account.airwortheas@airbus.com; internet http://

www.airbus.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

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

information on the availability of this 

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

It is also available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0903. 

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–2018– 

0903; or in person at Docket Operations 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this final rule, 

the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 

telephone and fax 206–231–3223. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2016–19–14, 

Amendment 39–18663 (81 FR 71602, 

October 18, 2016) (‘‘AD 2016–19–14’’). 

AD 2016–19–14 applied to certain 

Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 

series airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, 

–214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; 

and Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, 

–212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. 

The NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on November 5, 2018 (83 FR 

55299). Since we issued AD 2016–19– 

14, we have determined that the unsafe 

condition may exist on additional 

airplanes. This AD continues to require 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any 

cracking. This AD also adds airplanes to 

the applicability. We are issuing this AD 

to address reading difficulties of flightcritical information displayed to the 

flightcrew during a critical phase of 

flight, such as an approach or takeoff, 

which could result in loss of airplane 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES