[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14894-14898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6995]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-378-AD; Amendment 39-13091; AD 2003-06-04]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 Series 
Airplanes; and A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (Collectively Called 
A300-600) Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive 
(AD), applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R 
(collectively called A300-600) series

[[Page 14895]]

airplanes, that currently requires repetitive inspections to detect 
cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and 
repair if necessary. This amendment retains those requirements but 
shortens the initial compliance time and the repetitive inspection 
intervals. This amendment also expands the applicability to include 
additional airplanes. This amendment is prompted by issuance of 
mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a civil airworthiness 
authority. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect and 
correct such fatigue cracking, which could result in propagation of the 
cracking to the rear fitting and reduced structural integrity of 
fuselage frame 47.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2003.
    The incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletins A300-53-
6029, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, and A300-53-0246, Revision 
03, including Appendix 03, both dated April 11, 2001, as listed in the 
regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
May 1, 2003.
    The incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6029, Revision 02, dated November 7, 1994, as listed in the 
regulations, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal 
Register as of October 16, 1996 (61 FR 47808, September 11, 1996).

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Jacques Leborgne, Airbus Industrie Customer Service 
Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 
France. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, 
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 96-18-18, 
amendment 39-9744 (61 FR 47808, September 11, 1996), which is 
applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R 
(collectively called A300-600) series airplanes, was published in the 
Federal Register on June 11, 2002 (67 FR 39900). That action proposed 
to retain the requirements of the existing AD but shorten the initial 
compliance time and repetitive inspection intervals. That action also 
proposed to expand the applicability to include additional airplanes.

Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.

Support for the Proposed AD

    The commenters generally support the proposed AD, with the 
following recommended changes.

Request To Revise Compliance Time of Paragraph (b)(1)

    Several commenters request that the compliance time of paragraph 
(b)(1) (applicable to Model A300-600 series airplanes) of the proposed 
AD be revised. The commenters state that the proposed wording would 
effect a compliance time more restrictive than that mandated in the 
corresponding French airworthiness directive. The commenters add that 
such a compliance time would penalize airlines for inspections done in 
compliance with the new proposed requirements that were accomplished 
before the effective date of the AD by requiring reinspection in 60 
days.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed AD is incorrect. The FAA had 
intended to match the compliance time of AD 96-18-18 with that mandated 
by the parallel French airworthiness directive 2001-355(B), dated 
August 8, 2001. Therefore, the compliance time in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this final rule has been revised to 6,100 flight cycles, with a grace 
period of 750 flight cycles/1,900 flight hours (whichever occurs 
first). This change does not result in a more restrictive inspection 
schedule than that of the proposed AD, and consequently does not impose 
an additional burden on any operator.

Request To Allow Flight With Cracks

    Several commenters request that paragraphs (c) and (d) of the 
proposed AD be revised to allow temporary continued flight with cracks 
under certain conditions found during inspection. The commenters state 
that such a provision would provide the FAA with data to monitor 
airplanes with cracks and still allow a level of safety equivalent to 
that of the proposed AD. One commenter describes an inspection schedule 
based on crack length, agreed to by the FAA and the manufacturer.
    The FAA partially agrees, but does not concur with the request to 
allow flight with known cracking in a major frame in a primary 
structure. The FAA finds it necessary to evaluate each crack finding on 
a case-by-case basis, and to require repair procedures or repetitive 
inspections based on that evaluation. The FAA may consider allowing 
flight with known cracks as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), 
based on the configuration of the cracks and the operator's ability to 
safely monitor the cracks by inspection until a repair can be 
implemented. Given the expertise required to adequately monitor 
cracking conditions in a manner that ensures the safety of the public, 
the FAA would consider such a provision only as an AMOC. No change to 
the final rule is necessary regarding this issue. However, after 
operators' inspection findings have been validated, the FAA may 
consider issuing an AMOC with general applicability to all affected 
airplanes, provided Airbus can specify a comprehensive crack-monitoring 
program that reduces the need for direct FAA engineering involvement in 
individual crack-monitoring programs.

Request To Extend Compliance Time of Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)

    Two commenters request that paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD 
be revised to reflect a compliance time of ``750 flight cycles or 1,500 
flight hours, whichever occurs first.'' According to the commenters, 
the proposed 60-day grace period would result in economic hardship to 
operators. The commenters request the same grace period as that for 
Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes.
    The FAA agrees. The grace period, inadvertently written in 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) in the proposed AD as 60 days, has been revised in 
this final rule to 750 flight cycles/1,900 flight hours (whichever 
occurs first).

Request To Coordinate Compliance Times of Related ADs

    Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to consider 
the effects of existing ADs that involve work in the same area. The 
commenters refer to three related ADs: AD 95-24-04, amendment 39-9436 
(60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995); AD 97-16-06, amendment 39-10097 (62 
FR 41257, August 1, 1997), as corrected (62 FR 44888, August 25, 1997); 
and AD 2002-11-04, amendment 39-12765 (67 FR 38193, June 3, 2002). The 
commenters propose a harmonized inspection threshold to take advantage 
of access,

[[Page 14896]]

down time, and maintenance costs associated with the referenced ADs.
    The FAA recognizes the potential value of a harmonized approach to 
address multiple inspections of the same general area based on other 
ADs, and will take the commenters' suggestion under advisement for 
future rulemaking actions. However, in this case the identified unsafe 
condition is an immediate concern properly addressed in a unique AD. 
Coordinating a comprehensive review of related ADs would further delay 
issuance of this AD, which, in any event, is not the proper forum to 
address such a review. No change to the final rule is necessary 
regarding this issue.

Request To Consider Repair Interference

    Two commenters state that the proposed AD does not address the 
effect of any impingement of repairs (in case of a crack finding) on 
the inspection areas of various ADs in this area and/or interference 
between repairs. The FAA infers that the commenters are requesting that 
the proposed AD be revised to account for the potential effects of 
repairs that may have been done in the inspection area of this AD.
    The details of the effect of other repairs relative to this AD are 
unknown, so the FAA cannot address the comment other than to state that 
this subject is discussed in Note 1 of the AD. Note 1 explains the 
implications and consequences of previous repairs in the subject area 
relative to compliance with the requirements of this AD. The FAA 
suggests that, for any deviations due to repairs in the affected area, 
each operator combine its compliance proposals into a single request 
for approval of an AMOC to reduce the number of requests for AMOCs this 
AD may generate. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding 
this issue.

Request To Allow New Repairs Based on Prior Approved Repairs

    Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to ``take 
credit for corrective actions (repairs/rework, etc.) in the subject 
area, approved by either [the FAA] or the DGAC'' to ``minimize the AMOC 
process and aircraft return to service.'' The FAA infers that the 
commenters request approval for repair of newly discovered cracks based 
on previously approved repairs.
    The FAA does not agree. Because of the nature of the cracking and 
the complexity of the area subject to the cracking, the FAA finds that 
a repair method that is appropriate for one crack configuration may not 
adequately address all possible crack configurations. The manufacturer 
has not issued a service bulletin that provides instructions for repair 
procedures. If such service information is developed and released, the 
FAA may issue further rulemaking to allow or require crack repair in 
accordance with that service bulletin. Until then, however, repairs 
must be approved through the AMOC process, as provided in paragraph 
(f)(1) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding 
this issue.

Request To Add Service Information

    Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to 
incorporate Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A300-53-6135, Revision 01, 
dated February 2002. The commenters state that the AOT provides 
information such as new reporting procedures, crack length 
clarification, and nondestructive test methods.
    The FAA finds that the AOT would not add any significant meaningful 
information regarding the requirements of this AD. This AD has 
discussed reporting procedures and crack length clarification at some 
length. This AD generally prohibits continued flight with a known crack 
(unless certain conditions are met, as determined and approved by the 
FAA or the DGAC). As a result, the AOT provisions are not applicable or 
necessary. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this 
issue.

Request To Cite Latest Service Bulletin Version

    Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to cite the 
latest revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029 (which was 
cited in AD 96-18-18, at Revision 02, and in the proposed AD, at 
Revision 05, as the appropriate source of inspection information for 
Model A300-600 series airplanes). The commenters report that Revisions 
06 and 07 (which have not been issued) of the service bulletin will 
include repair procedures. The commenters suggest that reference in the 
AD to a service bulletin repair will expedite affected airplanes' 
return to service and reduce the number of requests for AMOCs. One of 
the commenters requests that the proposed AD be revised to authorize 
repairs as terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
    The FAA does not agree. As stated previously, the service bulletins 
do not contain repair instructions. Requiring accomplishment of any 
action in accordance with an as-yet unpublished service bulletin 
violates Office of the Federal Register regulations regarding approval 
of materials that are incorporated by reference. However, affected 
operators may request approval to use a later revision of the 
referenced service bulletin (if issued) as an AMOC, under the 
provisions of paragraph (f)(1) of the AD. If repair instructions are 
included in a revised service bulletin, the FAA may then consider 
issuing further rulemaking or an AMOC with general applicability to all 
affected airplanes. Further, terminating action will not be routinely 
granted as a part of each AMOC because of the complexity of the 
procedures required for inspection, measurement, and repair in the 
subject area. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this 
issue.

Request To Clarify Paragraph (c) Requirements

    One commenter requests clarification of the requirements of 
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD. The commenter finds the phrase 
``reinspect the airplane'' nonspecific and potentially misleading, and 
recommends that the AD clearly identify the area of the airplane that 
is to be reinspected and the type of reinspection required if 
discrepancies are found.
    The FAA agrees that clarification of the reinspection language 
would be helpful. Paragraphs (c) and (d) have been revised in this 
final rule to indicate that, as an option to repair, the FAA may 
approve reinspection--in accordance with the applicable service 
bulletin--within specific intervals.

Request To Include Repetitive Inspections in Reporting Requirement

    One commenter requests that reports be required following each 
repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. 
The added data from the additional reports would increase the flow of 
valuable data to Airbus for better and more detailed understanding of 
the structural behavior and actual crack propagation.
    It was the FAA's intent in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to 
require a report following each repetitive inspection, as indicated by 
the phrase, ``after each inspection required by paragraphs (a) and (d) 
of this AD.'' Paragraph (b) of this AD merely sets forth the conditions 
and time interval for repeating the inspections of paragraph (a) of 
this AD. However, for clarification, paragraph (e) has been revised in 
this final rule to require a report following any inspection required 
specifically by paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of this AD.

[[Page 14897]]

Request To Revise Reporting Requirement Compliance Time

    One commenter requests that the proposed compliance time for 
submitting reports be extended. The commenter states that Airbus will 
be contacted for repair information immediately if cracks are found, 
and finds no advantage of requiring a report within 10 days if no 
cracks are found. The commenter suggests that a reporting compliance 
time of 30 days after any inspection would allow operators to process 
interval paper work and provide reports in the most organized and 
qualified manner.
    The FAA concurs with the request and has revised paragraph (e) in 
this final rule to extend the reporting compliance time to 30 days. 
This compliance time represents an appropriate interval in which 
reports can be submitted in a timely manner within the fleet and still 
maintain an adequate level of safety.

Additional Change to Proposed AD

    Because the language in Note 2 of the proposed AD is regulatory in 
nature, that note has been included in paragraph (a) of this final 
rule.

Interim Action

    This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has 
advised that it is currently developing repair procedures that will 
address the identified unsafe condition and terminate the repetitive 
inspections. Once these procedures are developed, approved, and made 
available, the FAA may consider additional rulemaking.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the available data, including the comments 
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public 
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously 
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither 
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of 
the AD.

Cost Impact

    Approximately 127 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by 
this AD.
    The inspection that is currently required by AD 96-18-18, and 
retained in this AD, takes approximately 4 work hours per airplane to 
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is 
estimated to be $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The new actions will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane 
to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on 
U.S. operators is estimated to be $38,100, or $300 per airplane, per 
inspection cycle.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this 
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the 
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed 
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform 
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures 
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to 
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other 
administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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); and (3) 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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action 
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained 
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9744 (61 FR 
47808, September 11, 1996), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), amendment 39-13091, to read as follows:

2003-06-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-13091. Docket 2001-NM-378-AD. 
Supersedes AD 96-18-18, Amendment 39-9744.

    Applicability: All Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; and 
all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called 
A300-600) series airplanes; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) 
of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect 
of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been 
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to 
address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper radius of 
the forward fitting of fuselage frame 47, which could result in 
propagation of the cracking to the rear fitting and reduced 
structural integrity of frame 47, accomplish the following:

Model A300-600: Inspection

    (a) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: At the earlier of the 
times specified by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, perform 
an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the upper radius of 
the left and right forward fitting of frame 47, in accordance with 
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 02, dated November 7, 
1994; or Revision 05, dated April 11, 2001. After the effective date 
of this AD, only Revision 05 of the service bulletin may be used. 
Accomplishment of an inspection before the effective date of this AD 
in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 
03, dated October 7, 1997, or Revision 04, dated October 25, 1999, 
is acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 17,300 total flight cycles, or 
within one year after October 16, 1996 (the effective date of AD 96-
18-18, amendment 39-9744), whichever occurs later.
    (2) At the later of the times specified by paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles or 
26,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

[[Page 14898]]

    (ii) Within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours, whichever 
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

Model A300-600: Follow-On Inspections

    (b) For Model A300-600 series airplanes on which no cracking is 
found during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD:
    (1) If the initial inspection was accomplished before the 
effective date of this AD, repeat the inspection at the later of the 
times specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this AD. 
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at least every 6,100 flight cycles 
or 15,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) Reinspect within 6,100 flight cycles after the initial 
inspection.
    (ii) Reinspect within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours, 
whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) If the initial inspection was not accomplished before the 
effective date of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at least 
every 6,100 flight cycles or 15,600 flight hours, whichever occurs 
first.

Model A300-600: Corrective Action

    (c) For Model A300-600 series airplanes on which any cracking is 
found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further 
flight, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction 
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated 
representative); for instructions regarding repair or for an 
applicable reinspection interval in accordance with Airbus Service 
Bulletin A300-52-6029, Revision 05, dated April 11, 2001. Repair 
and/or reinspection accomplished before the effective date of this 
AD in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, 
International Branch, ANM-116, is acceptable for compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.

Model A300 B2 and B4: Inspection and Follow-On Actions

    (d) For Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes: At the applicable 
time specified in paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this AD, 
perform repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracking of 
the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, left and right 
sides, per Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 03, dated 
April 11, 2001. If any cracking is found: Before further flight, 
contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or 
its delegated representative), for instructions regarding repair, or 
for an applicable reinspection interval in accordance with the 
service bulletin. This requirement terminates the corresponding 
inspection requirement of the A300 Supplemental Structural 
Inspection Document (SSID) for Model A300 B2 and B4 series 
airplanes. That SSID is mandated by AD 96-13-11, amendment 39-9679.
    (1) For Model A300 B2 series airplanes: Perform the initial 
inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs 
(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection 
thereafter at least every 10,400 flight cycles or 13,300 flight 
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 16,500 total flight cycles or 
21,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles or 1,300 flight hours after the 
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For Model A300 B4-100 series airplanes: Perform the initial 
inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs 
(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection 
thereafter at least every 8,500 flight cycles or 16,400 flight 
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 10,300 total flight cycles or 
19,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after the 
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For Model A300 B4-200 series airplanes: Perform the initial 
inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs 
(d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection 
thereafter at least every 7,000 flight cycles or 13,600 flight 
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 11,000 total flight cycles or 
21,200 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after the 
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

Reporting Requirement

    (e) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (e)(1) or 
(e)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of all results of each inspection 
required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of this AD to Airbus 
Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 
France, Attention Jacques Leborgne, fax 33-5-61-93-36-14. The report 
must include the inspection results, a description of any 
discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of 
landings and flight hours on the airplane. Information collection 
requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been 
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection is accomplished after 
the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days 
after performing the inspection.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection has been accomplished 
before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 
days after the effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (f)(1) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116. 
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA 
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send 
it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
    (2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously in 
accordance with AD 96-18-18, amendment 39-9744, and AD 96-13-11, 
amendment 39-9679, are approved as alternative methods of compliance 
with the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this AD.

    Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.

Special Flight Permits

    (g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where 
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

    (h) Except as otherwise required by this AD, the actions must be 
done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, 
Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated April 11, 2001; Airbus 
Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, 
dated April 11, 2001; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, 
Revision 02, dated November 7, 1994.
    (1) The incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin 
A300-53-6029, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated April 11, 
2001; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 03, 
including Appendix 01, dated April 11, 2001; is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin 
A300-53-6029, Revision 02, dated November 7, 1994, was approved 
previously by the Director of the Federal Register, as of October 
16, 1996 (61 FR 47808, September 11, 1996).
    (3) Copies of these service bulletins may be obtained from 
Jacques Leborgne, Airbus Industrie Customer Service Directorate, 1 
Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; fax (+33) 
5 61 93 36 14. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 
at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

    Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed in French 
airworthiness directive 2001-355(B), dated August 8, 2001.

Effective Date

    (i) This amendment becomes effective on May 1, 2003.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 18, 2003.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-6995 Filed 3-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P