AD 2018-01-07

This AD is effective February 20, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 20, 2018.

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 Standards Branch, 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-2017-0514.

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus 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 June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25552) (“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 2016-0218, dated November 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus 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:

The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A300-600 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) document(s). These instructions have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2014-0124 (later revised) [which includes actions for Airbus A300-600 airplanes; those actions are included in FAA AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014) (“AD 2013-13-13”)], requiring the actions described in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) Document at issue 13 and Temporary Revision (TR) 13.1.

Since EASA AD 2014-0124R1 was issued, Airbus replaced A300-600 ALI Document issue 13, with A300-600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01 and then published the A300-600 ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and Variation 1.2, to introduce more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.

A300-600 ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 also includes ALI 571067 and ALI 571068, superseding Service Bulletin A300-53-6154, which is referenced in EASA AD 2006-0257 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-22-05, Amendment 39-15241 (72 FR 60236, October 24, 2007) (“AD 2007-22-05”)].

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains part of the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1, which will be superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01, and ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and ALS Part 2 Variation 1.2 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD), and supersedes EASA AD 2006-0257. The remaining requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1 are retained in AD 2016-0217, applicable to A310 aeroplanes, published at the same time as this [EASA] AD.

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-2017-0514.

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. FedEx generally supported the NPRM.

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM be revised to add an additional grace period. UPS pointed out that there are several new or revised tasks with relatively low compliance time thresholds that would lead to short lead times on accomplishing those tasks after the effective date of the AD. UPS referenced the compliance time required in AD 2013-13-13 as an example of the type of grace period it envisions, which specifies that a compliance time, in flight cycles (FC), that is after the publication date of the applicable service information should be considered as after the effective date of that AD. UPS suggested that where the compliance time in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI),” Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015, specifies “within 2000 FC from Jun 11/15,” the proposed AD should specify that phrase as “within 2000 FC from the effective date of this AD.” UPS anticipated submitting a request for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if the additional grace period is not added.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to add an additional grace period. We have reviewed the compliance times specified in the service information and have determined that the compliance times specified and grace periods provided in both the service information and in paragraph (g) of this AD are sufficient to allow compliance. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, we will also consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

FedEx requested that AMOCs for AD 2013-13-13 be applicable to this AD. No further justification was provided.

We agree to allow AMOCs that were previously approved for AD 2013-13-13 as AMOCs for this AD. We have revised paragraph (j)(1) of this AD and added paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) to this AD to add that provision.

FedEx requested that the cost information be revised to include the costs of additional actions such as AD tracking and planning, changing work cards and the maintenance program, getting local FAA approvals, and aircraft down time. FedEx proposed that the cost for U.S. operators would exceed $500,000.

We agree to revise the cost information. Based on the information provided by FedEx, we have revised the estimated work-hours from 1 work-hour to 90 work-hours. We recognize that revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate changes in multiple tasks or a new revision level of a section of an ALS document would take more time than a change in a single task. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time necessary for planning or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment 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.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed the following service information:

• Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI),” Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.

• Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI),” Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.

• Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI),” Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.

The service information describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT ALIs. These documents are distinct because they contain unique tasks. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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 to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):