50544 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 161 / Thursday, August 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

classified as small entities under the 

SBA definition. Thus, the majority of 

handlers and producers of Far West 

spearmint oil may not be classified as 

small entities. 

The use of volume control regulation 

allows the spearmint oil industry to 

fully supply spearmint oil markets 

while avoiding the negative 

consequences of over-supplying these 

markets. Without volume control 

regulation, the supply and price of 

spearmint oil would likely fluctuate 

widely. Periods of oversupply could 

result in low producer prices and a large 

volume of oil stored and carried over to 

future crop years. Periods of 

undersupply could lead to excessive 

price spikes and could drive end users 

to source their flavoring needs from 

other markets, potentially causing longterm economic damage to the domestic 

spearmint oil industry. The order’s 

volume control provisions have been 

successfully implemented in the 

domestic spearmint oil industry since 

1980 and provide benefits for producers, 

handlers, manufacturers, and 

consumers. 

This rule increases the quantity of 

Native spearmint oil that handlers may 

purchase from or handle on behalf of 

producers during the 2014–2015 

marketing year, which ended on May 

31, 2015. The 2014–2015 Native 

spearmint oil salable quantity was 

initially established at 1,090,821 pounds 

and the allotment percentage initially 

set at 46 percent. In a separate 

rulemaking action, the salable quantity 

was increased to 1,280,561 pounds and 

the allotment percentage was increased 

54 percent. This rule continues in effect 

the action that further increased the 

2014–2015 Native spearmint oil salable 

quantity to 1,351,704 and the allotment 

percentage to 57 percent. 

The Committee reached its decision to 

recommend a further increase in the 

salable quantity and allotment after 

consideration of all available 

information. With the increase, the 

Committee believes that the industry 

will be able to satisfactorily meet the 

current market demand for this class of 

spearmint oil. This rule amends the 

salable quantity and allotment 

percentage previously established for 

Native spearmint oil in § 985.233. 

Authority for this action is provided in 

§§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the 

order. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, 

Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing 

Orders. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

are necessary. Should any changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

This rule will not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

spearmint oil handlers. As with all 

Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. In 

addition, USDA has not identified any 

relevant Federal rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this rule. 

Further, the Committee’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

spearmint oil industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Committee 

deliberations. Like all Committee 

meetings, the February 18, 2015, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their views on this issue. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before May 

29, 2015. One comment was received. 

The comment was non-substantive in 

nature and did not address the merits of 

the rule. Accordingly, no changes were 

made to the rule. For the reasons given 

in the interim rule, we are adopting the 

interim rule as a final rule. 

To view the interim rule, go to: 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-13-0087- 

0006. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, 

and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the EGov Act (44 U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (80 FR 16547, March, 2015) 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985 

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Spearmint oil. 

Accordingly, the interim rule that 

amended 7 CFR part 985 and that was 

published at 80 FR 16547 on March 30, 

2015, is adopted as a final rule, without 

change. 

Dated: August 13, 2015. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20442 Filed 8–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0282; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–168–AD; Amendment 

39–18242; AD 2015–17–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98–18–02 

for certain Airbus Model A300 B4–600, 

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

and Model C4–605R variant F airplanes 

(collectively called A300–600 series 

airplanes). AD 98–18–02 required 

inspections to detect cracks in the 

center spar sealing angles adjacent to 

the pylon rear attachment and in the 

adjacent butt strap and skin panel, and 

correction of discrepancies. This new 

AD continues to require inspections for 

cracks. This new AD also requires a 

modification by cold expansion of the 

center spar sealing angles, replacement 

of both sealing angles and cold 

expansion of the attachment holes if 

necessary, and post-repair repetitive 

inspections and corrective actions if 

necessary. This AD was prompted by 

reports of cracking in the vertical web 

of the center spar sealing angles of the 

wing, and subsequent analyses that 

showed that the inspection threshold 

and interval specified in AD 98–18–02 

must be reduced to allow timely 

detection of cracks on the sealing angles 

of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent crack 

formation in the sealing angles, which 

could rupture the sealing angle and lead 

to subsequent crack formation in the 

bottom skin of the wing, and result in 

reduced structural integrity of the center 

spar section of the wing. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

September 24, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of September 24, 2015. 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 161 / Thursday, August 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50545 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0282; or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW 

(Airworthiness Office), 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–2014– 

0282. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2006–07–07, 

Amendment 39–14534 (71 FR 16206, 

March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 

2006 (71 FR 20530)). AD 2006–07–07 

applied to certain Airbus Model A300 

B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R series 

airplanes, and Model C4–605R variant F 

airplanes (collectively called A300–600 

series airplanes). The NPRM published 

in the Federal Register on May 9, 2014 

(79 FR 26651). The NPRM was 

prompted by reports of cracking in the 

vertical web of the center spar sealing 

angles of the wing, and subsequent 

analyses that showed that the inspection 

threshold and interval must be reduced 

to allow timely detection of cracks. The 

NPRM proposed to continue to require 

the actions in AD 2006–07–07: 

Modification of bolt holes in the vertical 

flange of the center spar sealing angles, 

and applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions. The NPRM also 

proposed to require inspections for 

cracks, a modification by cold 

expansion of the center spar sealing 

angles, replacement of both sealing 

angles and cold expansion of the 

attachment holes if necessary, and postrepair repetitive inspections and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent crack 

formation in the sealing angles, which 

could rupture the sealing angle and lead 

to subsequent crack formation in the 

bottom skin of the wing, and result in 

reduced structural integrity of the center 

spar section of the wing. 

Although we proposed to supersede 

AD 2006–07–07, Amendment 39–14534 

(71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected 

April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), this AD 

instead supersedes AD 98–18–02, 

Amendment 39–10718 (63 FR 45689, 

August 27, 1998). AD 98–18–02 

required inspections using an earlier 

revision of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 

6, 2011, which is the appropriate source 

of service information for doing the 

inspections required by this AD. This 

change to the proposed actions is 

explained in the ‘‘Request to Supersede 

a Different AD’’ paragraph in the 

preamble of this final rule. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD 2012–0194, 

dated September 25, 2012 (referred to 

after this as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for certain Airbus Model A300 B4–600, 

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

and Model C4–605R variant F airplanes 

(collectively called A300–600 series 

airplanes). The MCAI states: 

Fatigue testing applied to a test airframe 

confirmed the initiation of cracks on the 

sealing angles of the centre spar, adjacent to 

rib 8, which could lead to the rupture of the 

sealing angles and the subsequent crack 

initiation in the bottom skin of the wing. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could affect the structural integrity 

of the aeroplane. 

To address this unsafe condition, DGAC 

[French Civil Aviation Authority] France 

issued * * * [an earlier AD][which 

corresponds to FAA AD 98–18–02, 

Amendment 39–10718, (63 FR 45689, August 

27, 1998)] to require inspection of centre spar 

sealing angles adjacent to pylon rear 

attachment fittings of Left Hand (LH) and 

Right Hand (RH) wings. 

Early cracks reported on an in-service 

aeroplane prompted Airbus to conduct 

additional investigations. Based on the 

results, DGAC France issued * * * [an AD 

that superseded the earlier DGAC AD], to 

require modification of the affected 

aeroplanes as specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin (SB) A300–57–6033 (Airbus Mod 

8609), as well as post-modification repetitive 

inspections. [DGAC France AD 2003– 

290(B)R1 (http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2006-24364-0008) 

revised the DGAC AD that required 

modification and post-modification repetitive 

inspections.] 

Since DGAC France AD 2003–290(B)R1 

was issued [which corresponds to FAA AD 

2006–07–07, Amendment 39–14534 (71 FR 

16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 

2006 (71 FR 20530))], 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 have shown that the 

inspection threshold and interval must be 

reduced to allow timely detection of cracks 

on the sealing angles of the centre spar, 

adjacent to rib 8. 

For the reasons described above, this new 

[EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC 

France AD 2003–290(B)R1, which is 

superseded, and requires the 

accomplishment instructions at the new 

thresholds and intervals given by Revision 07 

of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300–57– 

6027. 

The required actions also include 

repetitive high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspections of the center spar 

sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear 

attachment fitting for cracks, modifying 

the airplane by cold expansion of the 

center spar sealing angles outboard of 

rib 8 if necessary, replacing both of the 

forward and aft sealing angles with new 

sealing angles and cold expanding the 

attachment holes if necessary, and doing 

post-repair repetitive inspections and 

corrective actions if necessary. You may 

examine the MCAI in the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0282- 

0002. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (79 FR 26651, 

May 9, 2014) and the FAA’s response to 

each comment. 

Request To Supersede a Different AD 

UPS requested that AD 98–18–02, 

Amendment 39–10718 (63 FR 45689, 

August 27, 1998), be superseded and AD 

2006–07–07, Amendment 39–14534 (71 

FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected 

April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), remain 

a stand-alone AD to address potential 

conflicts with the inspection interval 

differences. UPS stated that AD 98–18– 

02 refers to Airbus Industrie Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 2, 

dated September 13, 1994, as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing 

inspections required by AD 98–18–02. 

UPS also stated that the NPRM (79 FR 

26651, May 9, 2014) refers to Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, as the 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50546 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 161 / Thursday, August 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing 

inspections specified in the NPRM. UPS 

stated there is a conflict in the 

inspection intervals between Airbus 

Industrie Service Bulletin A300–57– 

6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 

1994; and Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 

6, 2011. UPS also noted that AD 2006– 

07–07, Amendment 39–14534 (71 FR 

16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 

21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), requires a onetime modification in accordance with 

different service information (Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6033, 

Revision 01, dated December 18, 2003) 

and therefore that AD could be a standalone AD. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request and rationale. We have revised 

this AD to supersede AD 98–18–02, 

Amendment 39–10718 (63 FR 45689, 

August 27, 1998), and require 

inspections using Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011. This AD does not 

retain the inspections specified in 

Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300– 

57–6027, Revision 2, dated September 

13, 1994, and required by AD 98–18–02. 

In addition, AD 2006–07–07, 

Amendment 39–14534 (71 FR 16206, 

March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 

2006 (71 FR 20530)), is not superseded 

by this AD. Therefore, we have removed 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed 

AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) from 

this AD and redesignated the 

subsequent paragraphs. 

We have also revised the ‘‘prompted 

by’’ sentence in the SUMMARY section 

of this final rule and paragraph (e) of 

this AD to specify the AD ‘‘was 

prompted by reports of cracking in the 

vertical web of the center spar sealing 

angles of the wing, and subsequent 

analyses that showed that the inspection 

threshold and interval specified in AD 

98–18–02, Amendment 39–10718 (63 

FR 45689, August 27, 1998), must be 

reduced to allow timely detection of 

cracks on the sealing angles of the 

center spar, adjacent to rib 8.’’ 

Request To Revise Compliance Times 

UPS requested that we revise the 

compliance times in the proposed AD 

(79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) to reflect 

specific times regardless of the aircraft 

utilization rate. UPS stated that a 

comment response in AD 98–18–02, 

Amendment 39–10718 (63 FR 45689, 

August 27, 1998), noted that the FAA 

did not concur with the ‘‘average flight 

time’’ (‘‘AFT’’) compliance time 

methodology as it may not address the 

unsafe condition in a timely manner. 

UPS stated that paragraphs (i) and (j) of 

the proposed AD specify that the 

compliance time is at the applicable 

times specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011, which establishes 

the initial and repetitive inspection 

compliance times based on AFT 

methodology. UPS requested changing 

the compliance times in paragraphs (i) 

and (j) of the proposed AD to reflect 

specific values regardless of the aircraft 

utilization rate to provide consistency in 

the compliance times for the actions 

required by paragraph (i) of the 

proposed AD. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request to revise the compliance times 

in this AD. At the time the FAA issued 

AD 98–18–02, Amendment 39–10718 

(63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), the 

required actions in Airbus Industrie 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994, 

contained inspection thresholds and 

intervals based on airplane flight cycles, 

and provided instructions for adjusting 

the flight cycle threshold and interval 

using each individual airplane’s AFT 

utilization. The FAA did not agree with 

the AFT method because it could result 

in a different inspection threshold and 

interval for each individual airplane, 

and the FAA did not agree with 

adjusting a flight cycle based threshold 

and interval using the average flight 

time utilization without also having a 

related flight hour based threshold and 

interval. In Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 

6, 2011, the inspection thresholds and 

intervals are now based on the 

accumulation of both flight cycles and 

flight hours, and are listed in tables 

appropriately grouping airplanes with 

AFT utilization above 1.5 hours, and 

airplanes with AFT utilization at or 

below 1.5 hours. The changes made in 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, have 

addressed the FAA’s original concerns 

with the AFT method. Therefore, the 

current AFT method is acceptable for 

this AD. 

We acknowledge that a fixed 

compliance time for a fleet could be 

easier for operators to schedule and 

record compliance. Therefore, under the 

provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this 

AD, we will consider requests for 

approval of an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) if a proposal is 

submitted that is supported by technical 

data that includes fatigue and damage 

tolerance analysis. We have not changed 

this AD in this regard. 

Request To Combine Paragraphs (i) 

Through (m) of the Proposed AD (79 FR 

26651, May 9, 2014) 

UPS requested that we combine 

paragraphs (i) through (m) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 

2014) because the complexity of the 

paragraphs could easily result in 

incorrect interpretation of the proposed 

requirements and be counterproductive 

to the intent of the rule. The commenter 

stated that the requirements are 

distributed over five separate 

paragraphs. The commenter 

recommended that the requirements be 

revised by first requiring operators to 

identify whether Repair Drawing 

R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6033 was 

done and then by specifying the 

corresponding actions and compliance 

times for the affected airplanes. 

We acknowledge the requirements are 

complex. However, we disagree with the 

request to combine paragraphs (g) 

through (k) of this AD (which were 

designated as paragraphs (i) through (m) 

in the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 

9, 2014)). As stated previously, we are 

superseding AD 98–18–02, Amendment 

39–10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 

1998), to prevent any incorrect 

interpretation of the inspection 

compliance times. This AD corresponds 

to EASA AD 2012–0194, dated 

September 25, 2012, and both ADs refer 

to Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57– 

6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, 

for compliance times, which specifies 

the affected airplanes and 

corresponding compliance times. 

Paragraph (k) of this AD also specifies 

exceptions to Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 

6, 2011, in order to clarify certain 

actions and compliance times. We have 

not changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Revise Compliance Time 

Header 

UPS requested that the header for 

paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 

26651, May 9, 2014) be revised from 

‘‘Initial Compliance Times’’ to 

‘‘Inspection Compliance Times.’’ 

(Paragraph (j) of the proposed AD is 

redesignated as paragraph (h) of this 

AD.) UPS stated that ‘‘Initial 

Compliance Times’’ implies that 

requirements for subsequent or 

repetitive actions will be defined 

elsewhere in the final rule. 

We agree to revise the header for 

paragraph (h) of this AD; however we do 

not agree to use the terminology 

specified by the commenter. The 

requirements for subsequent and 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 161 / Thursday, August 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50547 

repetitive actions are, in fact, identified 

elsewhere in the final rule. The 

repetitive intervals for the inspections 

are specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, 

which was designated as paragraph (i) 

of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 

9, 2014). Paragraph (g) of this AD 

contains a sentence that specifies, 

‘‘Repeat the inspection required by 

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

intervals not to exceed . . . .’’ For clarity, 

we have revised the header for 

paragraph (h) of this AD to specify 

‘‘Initial Compliance Times for the 

Actions Required by Paragraph (g) of 

this AD.’’ 

In addition, we have clarified the 

corrective action statement in paragraph 

(i) of this AD by also referring to 

paragraph (g) of this AD, which contains 

the repetitive interval for the 

inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) 

of this AD. 

Request To Remove Requirement To 

Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals 

UPS requested that we remove the 

sentence ‘‘For a repair method to be 

approved, the repair approval must 

specifically refer to this AD’’ from 

paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed AD (79 

FR 26651, May 9, 2014), which is 

designated as paragraph (k)(1) of this 

AD. UPS stated that the FAA included 

this sentence in the NPRM because 

there is a ‘‘potential’’ for operators to do 

repairs that do not adequately address 

the unsafe condition. UPS commented 

that adding a reference to the applicable 

AD on repair documentation does not 

address the root cause of repair 

documentation availability. UPS stated 

that previously approved repairs for an 

AD should have been vetted as part of 

the corrective action and AD 

development process. However, if a 

repair is not identified during that 

process, the operator is still responsible 

for adhering to the Airworthy Product 

provision in an AD. UPS added that the 

Airworthy Product provision, in 

conjunction with FAA Advisory 

Circular 120–77, ‘‘Maintenance and 

Alteration Data,’’ dated October 7, 2002 

(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

199e798c7ee4347786256c4d004ae5dc/

$FILE/AC%20120-77.pdf), provides 

sufficient guidance and clarification for 

repairs accomplished during 

compliance with the requirements of an 

AD. 

We concur with the commenter’s 

request to remove from this AD the 

requirement that repair approvals 

specifically refer to this AD. We have 

revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD 

accordingly (designated as paragraph 

(m)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, 

May 9, 2014)). 

In addition, to address 

misinterpretation of the Airworthy 

Product paragraph, we have changed 

that paragraph and retitled it 

‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer.’’ This 

paragraph now clarifies that for any 

requirement in this AD to obtain 

corrective actions from a manufacturer, 

the actions must be accomplished using 

a method approved by the FAA, or the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). 

The Contacting the Manufacturer 

paragraph also clarifies that, if approved 

by the DOA, the approval must include 

the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA 

signature indicates that the data and 

information contained in the document 

are EASA approved, which is also FAA 

approved. Messages and other 

information provided by the 

manufacturer that do not contain the 

DOA-authorized signature approval are 

not EASA approved, unless EASA 

directly approves the manufacturer’s 

message or other information. This 

clarification does not remove flexibility 

afforded previously by the Airworthy 

Product paragraph. Consistent with 

long-standing FAA policy, such 

flexibility was never intended for 

required actions. Once we determine 

that an action is required, any deviation 

from the requirement must be approved 

as an alternative method of compliance. 

Request To Clarify Actions in 

Paragraphs (k) and (l) of the Proposed 

AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) 

UPS requested that we clarify 

paragraphs (k) and (l) of the proposed 

AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014). UPS 

stated that paragraph (l) of the proposed 

AD specifies ‘‘post-modification’’ 

actions, but paragraph (k) refers to 

accomplishing a ‘‘repair’’ using Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. UPS 

noted that Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 

6, 2011, includes subsequent inspection 

requirements for airplanes on which the 

actions specified in repair drawing 

R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6033 were 

done. UPS concluded that the intent of 

paragraph (l) of the proposed AD was 

for repairs outside of Repair Drawing 

R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6033. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary regarding which action is the 

‘‘modification’’ specified in paragraph 

(j) in this AD, which was designated as 

paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (79 FR 

26651, May 9, 2014). We have replaced 

the text ‘‘After modification of the 

airplane, as specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011,’’ with the following 

text: ‘‘For airplanes on which the 

modification specified in Airbus Repair 

Drawing R571504040 has been done.’’ 

Request To Clarify Applicability 

UPS requested that we revise 

paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (79 FR 

26651, May 9, 2014) to clarify that 

airplanes are excluded from the 

applicability if Airbus Modification 

8608 is incorporated ‘‘in production.’’ 

We agree with the commenter. Airbus 

Modification 8608 is a production 

modification. We have revised 

paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly by 

adding ‘‘in production’’ to the text. 

Request To Fix Typographical Error 

UPS requested that the paragraph 

designation for paragraph (o)(3) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 

2014) be revised because there are only 

two sub-paragraphs in paragraph (o) of 

the proposed AD. 

We agree. Paragraph (o) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 

2014) has been redesignated as 

paragraph (m) of this AD. Therefore, we 

have redesignated paragraph (o)(3) of 

the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 

2014) as paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. 

Clarification of Compliance Times and 

Actions 

We have revised the compliance time 

exception in paragraph (k)(4) of this AD, 

designated as paragraph (m)(4) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 

2014), to clarify the specified 

compliance times are since first flight of 

the airplane. 

We have also revised the reference to 

‘‘paragraph (k)(3) of this AD’’ within 

paragraph (g) of this AD to specify 

‘‘paragraph (k) of this AD’’ for the 

compliance time exception. 

We have also replaced the word 

‘‘repairing’’ with the word ‘‘inspecting’’ 

in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD because 

that paragraph specifies compliance 

times for inspection requirements. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data, 

including the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 

26651, May 9, 2014) for correcting the 

unsafe condition; and 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 161 / Thursday, August 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 26651, 

May 9, 2014). 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Airbus has issued the following 

service information: 

• Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, 

describes procedures for repetitive high 

frequency eddy current inspections for 

cracking of the center spar sealing 

angles adjacent to the pylon rear 

attachment fitting, and repair. 

• Service Bulletin A300–57–6033, 

Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011, 

describes procedures for modifying the 

airplane by cold expansion of the center 

spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8, 

including doing the eddy current 

inspections for cracks of the bolt holes. 

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 of 

this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 21 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate that it takes 8 work-hours 

per product to comply with the new 

basic requirements of this AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be 

$14,280, or $680 per product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions will take 

about 42 work-hours and require parts 

costing $10,000, for a cost of $13,570 

per product. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

may 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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0282; or in 

person at the Docket Management 

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

AD, the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

98–18–02, Amendment 39–10718 (63 

FR 45689, August 27, 1998), and adding 

the following new AD: 

2015–17–09 Airbus: Amendment 39–18242. 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0282; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–168–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective September 24, 

2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 98–18–02, 

Amendment 39–10718 (63 FR 45689, August 

27, 1998). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4– 

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

B4–622R airplanes, Model A300 F4–605R 

and F4–622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4– 

605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any 

category, except those on which Airbus 

Modification 8608 is incorporated in 

production. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracking in the vertical web of the center spar 

sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent 

analyses that showed that the inspection 

threshold and interval specified in AD 98– 

18–02, Amendment 39–10718 (63 FR 45689, 

August 27, 1998), must be reduced to allow 

timely detection of cracks on the sealing 

angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent crack 

formation in the sealing angles; such cracks 

could rupture the sealing angle and lead to 

subsequent crack formation in the bottom 

skin of the wing, and resultant reduced 

structural integrity of the center spar section 

of the wing. 

(f) Compliance 

You are responsible for having the actions 

required by this AD performed within the 

compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

(g) Inspection and Modification 

For all airplanes, at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, 

accomplish the actions specified in 

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

concurrently. Repeat the inspection required 

by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed the values as specified 

in the ‘‘Repeat Interval’’ column in Table 1 

or Table 2 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 

57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, as 

applicable to the airplane configuration and 

utilization; except as required by paragraph 

(k) of this AD. 

(1) Do a high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection of the center spar sealing 

angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment 

fitting for cracks, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011. 

(2) Unless already done: Modify the 

airplane by cold expansion of the center spar 

sealing angles outboard of rib 8, adjacent to 

the pylon rear attachment fitting, including 

doing the eddy current inspections for cracks 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 161 / Thursday, August 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50549 

of the bolt holes, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6033, Revision 02, 

dated September 19, 2011. 

(h) Initial Compliance Times for the Actions 

Required by Paragraph (g) of This AD 

At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, 

except as required by paragraph (k) of this 

AD, do the actions required by paragraph (g) 

of this AD. 

(1) At the applicable compliance time 

specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the 

‘‘Threshold Inspection,’’ column in 

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

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011. 

(2) At the applicable compliance time 

specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the 

‘‘Grace Period,’’ column in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 

2011. 

(i) Corrective Actions 

If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g), (g)(1), or (g)(2) of this AD, any 

crack is found: Before further flight, repair 

the crack by replacing both of the forward 

and aft sealing angles with new sealing 

angles and cold expansion of the attachment 

holes, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011. The corrective actions, as 

required by this paragraph, do not constitute 

as a terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) of 

this AD. 

(j) Post-Modification Actions 

For airplanes on which the modification 

specified in Airbus Repair Drawing 

R571504040 has been done: Within 3 months 

after the effective date of this AD, or before 

further flight after doing the modification, 

whichever occurs later, contact 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) 

for repetitive post-repair inspections and 

corrective actions, and do those actions. 

(k) Exceptions to the Service Information 

(1) Where Note 01 and Note 02 of 

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

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011, specify to contact Airbus 

for inspection requirements, this AD 

requires, at the applicable compliance time 

specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the 

‘‘Grace Period,’’ column in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 

2011, inspecting 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– 

57–6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, 

specifies a compliance time in Table 1 and 

Table 2 in the ‘‘Grace Period,’’ column in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(3) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 

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

Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated 

June 6, 2011, specify a choice between flight 

cycles or flight hours, this AD requires a 

compliance time within the specified flight 

cycles or flight hours, whichever occurs first. 

(4) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 

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

Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated 

June 6, 2011, specify compliance times in the 

‘‘Threshold Inspection’’ column for premodification 8609, those compliance times 

are flight cycles or flight hours since first 

flight of the airplane. 

(5) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 

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

Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, dated 

June 6, 2011, specify compliance times in the 

‘‘Threshold Inspection’’ column for any post 

modification or repair, this AD requires 

compliance within the applicable 

compliance time specified in the ‘‘Threshold 

Inspection’’ column of Table 1 and Table 2 

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

Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, Revision 07, 

dated June 6, 2011. Those compliance times 

are flight cycles or flight hours since 

accomplishing the modification or repair. 

(l) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this 

AD, if those actions were performed before 

the effective date of this AD using the service 

information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) 

through (l)(3) of this AD, which is not 

incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 04, dated August 4, 1999. 

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 05, dated November 21, 2002. 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6027, 

Revision 06, dated March 2, 2005. 

(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. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, for any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, the action must be 

accomplished using a method approved by 

the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

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 

2012–0194, dated September 25, 2012, 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–2014–0282. 

(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 A300–57–6027, 

Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. 

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–6033, 

Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW 

(Airworthiness Office), 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 August 

10, 2015. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20382 Filed 8–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES