Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21429 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane. 

(j) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax: 

(425) 917–6590; email: 

nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

You must use the following service 

information to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the 

following service information. 

(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2835, dated October 28, 2010. 

(2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2835, Revision 1, dated December 8, 

2011. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may also review copies of the 

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/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

28, 2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8232 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0025; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–208–AD; Amendment 

39–17012; AD 2012–07–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 777 

airplanes. This AD was prompted by a 

new revision to the airworthiness 

limitations of the maintenance planning 

document. This AD requires revising the 

maintenance program to update 

inspection requirements to detect 

fatigue cracking of principal structural 

elements (PSEs). We are issuing this AD 

to ensure that fatigue cracking of various 

PSEs is detected and corrected; such 

fatigue cracking could adversely affect 

the structural integrity of these 

airplanes. 

DATES: This AD is effective May 15, 

2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of May 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; email 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 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 address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Sutherland, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6533; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

James.Sutherland@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 

3054). That NPRM proposed to require 

revising the maintenance program to 

update inspection requirements to 

detect fatigue cracking of principal 

structural elements (PSEs). 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (76 FR 3054, 

January 19, 2011) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Refer to Latest Service 

Information 

Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) 

requested that we revise the NPRM (76 

FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to refer to 

two new revisions of Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, of the Boeing 

777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document, published after we issued 

the NPRM. Boeing stated that both 

revisions contain the same structures 

airworthiness limitations (AWL) data, 

but were revised for reasons that did not 

affect the data in Subsection B, 

Airworthiness Limitations—Structural 

Inspections of that document, which 

was specified in the NPRM. 

We agree with the request to refer to 

the later service information. We have 

changed this final rule to refer to 

Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, 

Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document to this AD. (Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision 

January 2010, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document was specified in the NPRM 

(76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011).) 

(Subsection B, Airworthiness 

Limitations—Structural Inspections, of 

Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, 

of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning 

Data (MPD) Document is identical to the 

January 2010 revision.) We have 

changed paragraph (g) in this final rule 

accordingly. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Request To Revise Inspection 

Requirements for Certain Airplanes 

JAL requested that, for certain 

airplanes, we revise paragraph (g) of the 

NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to 

require inspection procedures and 

intervals as determined by the damage 

tolerance rating check form, rather than 

Section 2, Structural Inspection 

Program, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document. JAL 

acknowledged that Section 2 of this 

MPD document usually incorporates 

recommended inspection procedures 

and intervals. JAL noted, however, that 

Section 2 in the latest revision of this 

MPD document includes data only for 

Model 777–200 series airplanes. Since 

no data are provided for the remaining 

airplanes affected by this AD (Model 

777–200LR, –300, –300ER, and 777F 

series airplanes), JAL requested that 

those airplanes be excluded from the 

requirement until the MPD document 

includes relevant data. 

We do not agree that the requested 

change is necessary, because the 

information regarding required 

inspection methods and intervals for 

these airplanes is provided in 

Subsection B, Airworthiness 

Limitations—Structural Inspections, of 

Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, 

Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document. We have not changed the 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Retain Applicability 

Boeing also advised that the revised 

inspection requirements in Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 

2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document, affect 

only Model 777–200, –300, –300ER and 

–200LR series airplanes. Boeing 

reported that Section 9 of the Boeing 

777F MPD document was previously 

developed based on the same damage 

tolerance methods and the same fleet 

and full-scale test data as those included 

in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ 

D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the 

Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document. Boeing asserted, 

therefore, that Model 777F series 

airplanes should be included in the 

applicability of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, 

January 19, 2011) regardless of changes 

made to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ 

D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the 

Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document. Including those 

airplanes will ensure the ability to 

obtain approval of potential future 

deviations for repairs or alternative 

inspections via alternative methods of 

compliance (AMOCs) (as described in 

paragraph (j) of this AD). Boeing made 

this comment in the event another party 

requested that we remove Model 777F 

series airplanes from the NPRM. 

We acknowledge Boeing’s concern, 

and agree that there is no reason to 

remove Model 777F series airplanes 

from the applicability specified in the 

NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011). 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Remove Certain Advisory 

Circular Reference 

Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, 

January 19, 2011) (paragraph (c)(2) of 

this AD) provided guidance on certain 

revised operator maintenance 

documents that include new 

inspections. Boeing requested that we 

remove the last sentence of that note, 

which stated that guidance for the 

determination can be found in FAA 

Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529–1A, 

dated November 20, 2007 (http:// 

rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). Boeing stated 

that this AC, as revised, applies only to 

airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross 

weight, so this AC no longer applies to 

Model 777 airplanes. 

We agree with Boeing’s request and 

rationale. We have revised paragraph (c) 

of this AD accordingly. 

Request To Allow Additional 

Alternative Inspections and Intervals 

American Airlines (AAL) and Boeing 

requested that we revise paragraph (h) 

of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 

2011), which prohibited alternative 

inspections or intervals except as 

specifically approved as AMOCs. To 

reduce the workload associated with 

requesting and approving AMOCs, the 

commenters requested that we include 

other specified procedures and 

intervals. 

Structurally Significant Items (SSIs) 

53–00–I01, –I02, and –I03 define the 

entire fuselage skin as an SSI, and AAL 

was concerned that the NPRM (76 FR 

3054, January 19, 2011) provided no 

guidance or information on how to 

address new and existing repairs. AAL 

surmised that any external doubler 

repair (past or future) would conceal a 

portion of the skin and would need 

AMOC approval for the inspection, 

which would be impossible to perform 

with the repair in place. AAL contended 

that any repair approved in accordance 

with section 25.571 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) or 

section 26.43(c) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)) has been 

addressed for fatigue and damage 

tolerance and would provide the level of 

safety desired by the NPRM. 

Boeing requested that we also allow 

alternative inspections and intervals 

specified in a later revision to Section 

9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 

and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, 

of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning 

Data (MPD) Document. Since Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, of the Boeing 

777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document changes frequently and is 

FAA approved, no subsequent reapproval should be necessary via 

AMOC. Boeing also requested that we 

allow alternative inspections and 

intervals if certain damage tolerance 

requirements have been met in 

accordance with section 25.571(b) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

25.571(b)), or section 26.43(c) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

26.43(c)), or section 26.43(d) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

26.43(d)). 

We disagree with the requests. 

Paragraph (h) in this AD requires 

compliance with the inspections unless 

AMOC approval is obtained as specified 

in paragraph (j) of this AD. Allowing 

later revisions of service documents in 

an AD violates Office of the Federal 

Register regulations for approving 

materials incorporated by reference. 

Affected operators may, however, 

request approval to use a later revision 

of referenced service information as an 

alternative method of compliance. In 

response to AAL’s concern, operators 

must request a method of compliance to 

address new and existing repairs, under 

the provisions of paragraph (j) of the 

final rule. We have not changed the 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Allow Optional Materials 

AAL requested that we revise the 

NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to 

allow the optional use of BMS materials 

(sealants) permitted in Boeing 

Document D–590, the Boeing 777 

Airplane Maintenance Manual, or the 

Boeing 777 Structural Repair Manual— 

instead of the specific materials 

specified in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ 

D622W001–9, Revision January 2010, of 

the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21431 

Data (MPD) Document. The use of 

alternative materials would allow for 

ready compliance if the current BMS 

materials were discontinued or 

improved. 

We disagree with the request. The 

documents referenced by the 

commenter specify specific procedures 

to remove the sealant, rather than 

specific types of sealant. Further, some 

existing ADs including those related to 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 

88 (‘‘SFAR 88’’), Amendment 21–78 and 

subsequent Amendments 21–82 and 21– 

83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002), 

require specific sealants, which may be 

identified in the BMS specifications, but 

only certain sealants may be used to 

comply with SFAR88; operators are 

limited to the use of sealants approved 

by other AD actions in areas that 

overlap with this AD. The application of 

the sealants and materials in Subsection 

B, Airworthiness Limitations— 

Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 

2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document, is often 

controlled by other ADs that mandate 

the use of certain sealants for 

Subsections D and E (of SFAR88). 

Operators may request an AMOC to use 

materials that have been determined to 

be acceptable for the various ADs 

applicable to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ 

D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the 

Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document. We have not changed 

the final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Consider Future Boeing 

Delegated Compliance Organization 

Delegation 

Boeing requested that we revise 

paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 

3054, January 19, 2011), which provides 

information about AMOCs for repairs. 

Boeing requested that we also specify 

AMOCs for inspection methods, since 

there may be instances where the 

operator cannot conduct the inspection 

method specified in Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision 

January 2010, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document, identified in the NPRM. 

Although authority to approve AMOCs 

for supplemental inspections of baseline 

structure may not currently exist for the 

Boeing Delegated Compliance 

Organization (BDCO), Boeing suggested 

that including both repairs and 

inspections would allow for potential 

future expansion of delegation. 

We disagree with the request. The 

nondiscretionary basis for this type of 

delegation has not yet been developed. 

At present, the FAA must approve tasks 

that involve discretion, and may 

delegate only nondiscretionary tasks. In 

any event, any change to delegation 

authority in the future will not affect the 

AD. We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify Allowable 

Equivalent Procedures 

AAL requested clarification of certain 

procedures. AAL observed the phrase 

‘‘refer to,’’ used in Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision 

January 2010, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document, to specify certain chapters in 

an AMM. AAL noted that use of this 

phrase in service bulletins allows 

operators to use their equivalent 

procedures. AAL requested that we 

revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 

19, 2011) to state that equivalent 

procedures are acceptable where the 

phrase ‘‘refer to’’ is used in Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 

2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document. 

We disagree with the request. As the 

commenter noted, the phrase ‘‘refer to’’ 

is used in both AMMs and Boeing 

service bulletins. In a service bulletin, 

use of the phrase ‘‘refer to’’ generally 

means that a determination was made to 

permit operators’ equivalent procedures 

where applicable, and use of the phrase 

‘‘as given in’’ or ‘‘in accordance with’’ 

generally means that operators’ 

equivalent procedures are not 

acceptable. But these definitions do not 

apply to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ 

D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the 

Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document, for which operators’ 

equivalent procedures are not 

specifically allowed. Under the 

provisions of paragraph (j) of this final 

rule, however, we will consider requests 

for approval to use different procedures, 

if sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the procedures would 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Compliance Time for 

Inspecting Replacement Parts 

Boeing requested that we revise 

paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, 

January 19, 2011) to permit the 

compliance time thresholds to be reset 

for new replacement parts. Boeing 

asserted that Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ 

D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the 

Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document does not explicitly 

state that the inspection threshold for 

new parts starts when the part is 

replaced, and that other existing ADs 

include terminating action that zerotimes certain fastener locations. Boeing 

made this request to allow operators to 

take credit for the younger life of those 

parts. 

We agree that this change is necessary 

to accommodate new replacement parts. 

We have changed the initial compliance 

time accordingly in paragraph (g) of this 

AD. 

Request To Revise Compliance Time for 

Reporting 

JAL noted that Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 

2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document 

includes a reporting timeframe of 10 

days after an inspection finding. JAL 

reported that these inspections are often 

accomplished during a heavy 

maintenance inspection where many 

inspections are accomplished over 

many days. Tracking all of the reporting 

at the time of return to service is easier 

rather than sending individual events 

occurring during the maintenance 

check. JAL therefore requested that the 

reporting time frames be revised from 10 

days after a finding to 10 days after the 

airplane is returned to service. 

We agree with JAL’s request and 

rationale. We have added this reporting 

provision in paragraph (g) in the final 

rule. We have also added new paragraph 

(i) in this final rule to explain the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, which requires agencies 

to consider the extent of the paperwork 

burden that will accompany any new 

rule. And we have reidentified 

subsequent paragraphs accordingly. 

Request To Revise Compliance Time 

Determination 

Boeing noted that FAA Advisory 

Circular (AC) 120–93, dated November 

20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf) provides 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

guidance for addressing damage 

tolerance inspection requirements for 

repairs and alterations to certain 

removable structural components. 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to 

add a provision to paragraph (g) of the 

NPRM, allowing FAA AC 120–93 as a 

means to establish compliance times for 

rotable parts where the data are not 

available. 

We disagree. That AC provides 

guidance and an acceptable means for 

developing the age of removable parts 

for the purpose of determining 

compliance times for repairs and 

alterations. If the actual age, flight 

hours, and flight cycles are unknown for 

a part affected by the AD, we would 

consider the operator’s request for an 

AMOC. This allows Boeing and 

operators the option to propose methods 

in detail that use FAA AC 120–93, dated 

November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf), for guidance. 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify Certain PSEs 

Wang Jian requested clarification of 

the identity of certain PSEs. Attached to 

this comment was a copy of a page from 

the Boeing 777F Structural Repair 

Manual, which identified primary 

structure for repair classification. From 

this page, the commenter observed that 

the main deck floor panels are identified 

as PSEs on Model 777F series airplanes, 

but not on other aircraft such as Model 

747–400F series airplanes. 

Although the commenter’s question 

concerning the PSE differences between 

the Model 747 and 777 is not related to 

the inspections required by this AD, the 

intent of the question may be explained 

in more detail in FAA Advisory Circular 

(AC) 25.1529–1A, dated November 20, 

2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). We have not 

changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Explanation of Additional Changes 

Made to This AD 

We have redesignated Note 1 and 

Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, 

January 19, 2011) as paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (c)(2) of this AD respectively. These 

changes have not changed the intent of 

this AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

153 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 

estimate the following costs to comply 

with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on 

U.S. 

operators 

Maintenance program revision ... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ................................................. $0 $85 $13,005 

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 

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): 

2012–07–06 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–17012; Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0025; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–208–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective May 15, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, –300ER, and 

777F series airplanes, certificated in any 

category, with an original airworthiness 

certificate or original export certificate of 

airworthiness issued before September 1, 

2010. 

(1) Airplanes with an original 

airworthiness certificate or original export 

certificate of airworthiness issued on or after 

September 1, 2010, must already be in 

compliance with the airworthiness 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21433 

limitations (AWLs) specified in this AD 

because those limitations were applicable as 

part of the airworthiness certification of those 

airplanes. 

(2) This AD requires revisions to certain 

operator maintenance documents to include 

new inspections. Compliance with these 

inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). 

For airplanes that have been previously 

modified, altered, or repaired in the areas 

addressed by these inspections, the operator 

may not be able to accomplish the 

inspections described in the revisions. In this 

situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), 

the operator must request approval for an 

alternative method of compliance according 

to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request 

should include a description of changes to 

the required inspections that will ensure the 

continued damage tolerance of the affected 

structure. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Codes 27, Flight Controls; 28, Fuel; 32, 

Landing Gear; 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, 

Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; and 57, 

Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a new revision 

to the airworthiness limitations of the 

maintenance planning document. We are 

issuing this AD to ensure that fatigue 

cracking of various principal structural 

elements (PSEs) is detected and corrected; 

such fatigue cracking could adversely affect 

the structural integrity of these airplanes. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Revision of Maintenance Program 

(1) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, revise the maintenance 

program by incorporating the information in 

Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations— 

Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, 

of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document, except as provided by 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(2) The initial compliance time for the 

inspections is within the applicable times 

specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness 

Limitations—Structural Inspections, of 

Section 9, of ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, 

Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document, or within 18 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later, or within the applicable time specified 

in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations— 

Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, 

of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document, from the time of 

installation for new parts. 

(3) Reports specified in Section 9, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, 

of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document may be submitted within 

10 days after the airplane is returned to 

service, instead of 10 days after each 

individual finding as specified in this 

document. 

(h) Alternative Inspections and Inspection 

Intervals 

After accomplishing the actions required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative 

inspections or inspection intervals may be 

used unless the alternative inspection or 

interval is approved as an alternative method 

of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of 

this AD. 

(i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden 

Statement 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 

a penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act unless that collection of information 

displays a current valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number for this 

information collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of information is 

estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per 

response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. All responses to 

this collection of information are mandatory. 

Comments concerning the accuracy of this 

burden and suggestions for reducing the 

burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it 

to the attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-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 in 

the areas affected by this AD if it is approved 

by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) that has been authorized by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO to make those 

findings. For a repair method to be approved, 

the repair must meet the certification basis of 

the airplane, and the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(k) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact James Sutherland, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 

(425) 917–6533; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

James.Sutherland@faa.gov. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) You must use the following service 

information to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the 

following service information: 

(i) Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, 

Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at an NARA facility, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

23, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8228 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1145] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific 

Sound Resources and Lockheed 

Shipyard EPA Superfund Cleanup 

Sites, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES