44672 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(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. 

(l) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Jeffrey Englert, Aerospace Engineer, 

Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, 

ACE–116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, 

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, 

KS 67209; phone: 316–946–4167; fax: 316– 

946–4107; email: jeffrey.englert@faa.gov. 

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Hawker Beechcraft Service Bulletin SB 

57–4112, dated February 2013. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Beechcraft Corporation, 

TMDC, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, KS 67201– 

0085; telephone 316–676–8238; fax 316–671– 

2540; email tmdc@beechcraft.com; Internet 

http://pubs.beechcraft.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at 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 July 15, 

2014. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17325 Filed 7–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0145; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–066–AD; Amendment 

39–17899; AD 2014–14–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003–18– 

10 for certain The Boeing Company 

Model 767 airplanes. AD 2003–18–10 

required revising the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section of the maintenance 

planning data (MPD) document. This 

new AD also requires revising the 

maintenance program to incorporate an 

additional limitation, which terminates 

the existing requirements; and adds 

airplanes to the applicability. This AD 

was prompted by a re-evaluation of 

certain doors and flaps based on their 

fatigue-critical nature. We are issuing 

this AD to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of the principal structural 

elements (PSEs), which could adversely 

affect the structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 

2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of September 5, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain other publications listed in 

this AD as of October 16, 2003 (68 FR 

53503, September 11, 2003). 

ADDRESSES: 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; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2012– 

0145; 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 

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 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: berhane.alazar@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2003–18–10, 

Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 53503, 

September 11, 2003). AD 2003–18–10 

applied to The Boeing Company Model 

767 airplanes. The NPRM published in 

the Federal Register on February 22, 

2012 (77 FR 10403). That NPRM 

proposed to continue to require revising 

the Airworthiness Limitations Section 

of the MPD document. That NPRM also 

proposed to require revising the 

maintenance program to incorporate an 

additional limitation, which terminates 

the existing requirements; and adding 

airplanes to the applicability. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 10403, 

February 22, 2012) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Reduce the Scope of the 

NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 

2012) 

ABX Air requested that we reduce the 

scope of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 

February 22, 2012). 

ABX Air stated that the ‘‘SUMMARY’’ 

and ‘‘Actions Since Existing AD was 

Issued’’ sections of the NPRM imply 

that it is a result of an unsafe condition 

relating to certain cargo doors and flaps. 

ABX Air stated that the NPRM would 

require incorporation of the July 2011 

revision of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 

MPD Document into the operator’s 

maintenance program. ABX Air stated 

that requiring the complete revision is 

overreaching the AD’s scope. 

We disagree with reducing the scope 

of this final rule. The NPRM (77 FR 

10403, February 22, 2012) stated that reevaluation of certain doors and flaps 

prompted the new rulemaking. 

However, the re-evaluation was not 

limited to certain doors and flaps, but 

rather a complete review of the entire 

July 2011 revision of Subsection B, 

Airworthiness Limitations—Structural 

Limitations, of Section 9 of the Boeing 

767 MPD Document. The AD is 

intended to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of the principal structural 

elements (PSEs) listed in the July 2011 

revision of Subsection B, Airworthiness 

Limitations—Structural Limitations, of 

Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44673 

Document, as stated in the preamble of 

the NPRM. We have not changed this 

final rule in this regard. 

Request To Revise Note 1 to Paragraph 

(c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 

22, 2012) 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

reference in Note 1 to paragraph (c) of 

the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 

2012) from FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 

25.1529–1A (http://rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B

5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?

OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 

1a) to FAA AC 120–93, dated November 

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

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ 

F73FD2A31B353A71862

573B000521928?

OpenDocument&Highlight=faa ac 120- 

93). Boeing stated that the FAA has 

revised AC 25.1529–1 at Revision A, 

dated November 20, 2007 (http:// 

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B55

37E0B345862573B0006FA23B?Open

Document&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a), to 

apply only to airplanes below 7,500 

pounds gross weight; therefore, AC 

25.1529–1A no longer applies to Model 

767 airplanes. 

We agree that FAA AC 25.1529–1A 

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

Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ 

E4111B5537E0B

345862573B0006FA23B?Open

Document&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a) 

does not apply to airplanes identified in 

this final rule, and have determined that 

Note 1 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 

FR 10403, February 22, 2012) is not 

needed. That note has been removed 

from this final rule. 

Request To Remove Reference to 

Certain Document 

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested 

that we remove the reference to 

Subsection B, Airworthiness 

Limitations—Structural Inspections, of 

Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D622T001–9, 

Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 767 

MPD Document from paragraph (g) of 

the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 

2012). UPS stated that, if paragraph (g) 

of the NPRM is a restatement of the 

requirements of AD 2003–18–10, 

Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 53503, 

September 11, 2003), then the July 2011 

revision is not required. UPS stated that, 

if the intent was to indicate those 

revisions previously approved by rule or 

Alternative Method of Compliance 

(AMOC) approval, then paragraph (g) of 

the NPRM should state that those 

revisions were previously approved 

instead of referring to specific revision 

dates. 

We disagree with the request to 

remove the reference. Including this 

reference in paragraph (g) of this final 

rule gives an option to the operator, and 

is not a requirement. No change has 

been made to this final rule in this 

regard. 

Requests To Permit Use of Later 

Revisions of MPD 

Boeing and AA requested that we 

permit the use of later revisions of 

Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D622T001–9, of 

the Boeing 767 MPD Document. Boeing 

stated that since the NPRM (77 FR 

10403, February 22, 2012) was 

published, new revisions of that 

document have been released. 

We agree to allow use of the most 

recent revision of the MPD (Subsection 

B, Airworthiness Limitations— 

Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision 

February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD 

Document), and have added this 

reference in paragraph (i) of this final 

rule accordingly. Operators may also 

request approval to use prior revisions 

of the referenced MPD as an alternative 

method of compliance, under the 

provisions of paragraph (l) of the final 

rule. 

Requests To Provide Grace Period 

ABX Air, Japan Air Lines (JAL), and 

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested 

that we add a grace period to paragraph 

(i) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 

22, 2012). 

ABX Air requested a 44-month grace 

period to allow operators to revise their 

maintenance program and do the initial 

inspection and repair without putting 

the fleet out of compliance. ABX Air 

stated that airplanes that have exceeded 

the existing 25,000-flight-cycle 

compliance time would be out of 

compliance when the AD is published. 

ABX believes that extending the 

compliance time to 44 months will 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

JAL requested we add a 24-month 

grace period to paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 

2012). JAL stated that it has airplanes 

that have exceeded the proposed 

compliance time. 

ANA requested that we change the 

compliance time for revising the 

maintenance program from 18 months 

to 45 months, or establish a grace period 

to coordinate with ANA’s C-check 

maintenance schedule. 

American Airlines (AA) requested 

clarification of the compliance times to 

address airplanes that are beyond the 

thresholds of the new tasks specified in 

Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD 

Document. AA stated that operators will 

have airplanes out of compliance with 

the maintenance program when Section 

9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document is 

incorporated. 

We find that clarification of the 

compliance time for the initial 

inspection is necessary. We have added 

a sentence to paragraph (i)(1) of this 

final rule to specify that the initial 

compliance times for the inspections are 

to be done at the applicable times 

specified in Subsection B, 

Airworthiness Limitations—Structural 

Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D622T001–9, Revision July 2011 or 

Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 

767 MPD Document; or within 18 

months after the effective date of this 

AD; whichever occurs later. 

In developing an appropriate 

compliance time, we considered the 

safety implications, the time necessary 

to design an acceptable modification, 

and normal maintenance schedules for 

timely accomplishment of the 

modification. In light of these items, we 

have determined that the times 

specified in Subsection B, 

Airworthiness Limitations—Structural 

Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D622T001–9, Revision July 2011 or 

Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 

767 MPD Document; or within 18 

months after the effective date of this 

AD; for the initial inspection is 

appropriate. However, under the 

provisions of paragraph (l) of the final 

rule, we will consider requests for 

approval of an extension of the 

compliance time if sufficient data are 

submitted to substantiate that the 

extension would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. 

Request To Allow Alternate Method To 

Track Rotable Parts 

Boeing requested that we change 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 

February 22, 2012) to allow Appendix 7 

of FAA AC 120–93, dated November 20, 

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

and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

F73FD2A31B353A71862573

B000521928?OpenDocument), or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
44674 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

another method approved by a principal 

maintenance inspector (PMI), as an 

alternative to the method for tracking 

rotable parts. Boeing stated that the 

current statement in Subsection B, 

Airworthiness Limitations—Structural 

Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D622T001–9, Revision July 2011, of the 

Boeing 767 MPD Document, is overly 

restrictive for the purpose of identifying 

fleet problems with an exploratory 

inspection program for removable 

structural components. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to change the method of 

compliance for tracking rotable parts. 

The Boeing MPD method is identical to, 

or less restrictive for fleet age than, the 

method described in FAA AC 120–93, 

dated November 20, 2007 (http:// 

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_

and_Guidance_Library/

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

F73FD2A31B353A71862573

B000521928?OpenDocument). This AC 

permits a ‘‘conservative’’ 

implementation schedule to be 

established. However, a ‘‘conservative’’ 

schedule is undefined and, therefore, 

unenforceable. As a result, the FAA 

guidance in the AC is inappropriate for 

inclusion in this final rule. No change 

has been made to this final rule in this 

regard. However, under the provisions 

of paragraph (l) of the final rule, we will 

consider requests for approval of an 

alternative method for compliance if 

sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the alternative method 

would provide an acceptable level of 

safety. 

Request To Require Maintenance 

Program Revision 

UPS requested that we revise the text 

of paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 

10403, February 22, 2012) to require 

revising the maintenance program to 

incorporate the identified MPD 

documents. UPS stated that paragraph 

(g) of the NPRM requires operators to 

revise Subsection B of Section 9 of the 

Boeing 767 MPD Document and 

Appendix B of Boeing 767 MPD 

Document. UPS noted that operators do 

not have control or revision authority 

over the Boeing 767 MPD documents. 

We agree with this request. We have 

revised paragraph (g) of this final rule to 

clarify how to revise the maintenance 

program. 

Requests To Permit Use of Later 

Revisions of Service Information 

Boeing and JAL requested that we 

permit the use of future FAA-approved 

revisions of the service information. 

We disagree. Using the phrase ‘‘laterapproved revisions’’ violates the Office 

of the Federal Register regulations for 

approving materials that are 

incorporated by reference. According to 

the provisions of paragraph (l) of this 

final rule, operators may request 

approval of an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) to use a later 

revision of the referenced MPD 

document as an alternative, if the 

request is submitted with substantiating 

data that demonstrate the later revision 

will provide an adequate level of safety. 

We have not changed this final rule in 

this regard. 

Requests To Expand AMOC Section To 

Include Previous Approvals 

United Airlines (United), AA, and 

UPS requested that we expand the 

AMOC section of the NPRM (77 FR 

10403, February 22, 2012) to include 

previous approvals for AMOCs for AD 

2003–18–10, Amendment 39–13301 (68 

FR 53503, September 11, 2003). 

We agree with the request. Repairs 

previously approved as AMOCs in 

accordance with AD 2003–18–10, 

Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 53503, 

September 11, 2003), are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

actions required by this final rule. We 

have added a new paragraph (l)(4) to 

this final rule accordingly. 

Requests To Expand AMOCs To Include 

Certain Repairs 

AA and Boeing requested that we 

expand the AMOC section to include 

repairs approved under section 25.571 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

26.43(d)) as acceptable methods of 

compliance. AA recommended that we 

approve as AMOCs to the NPRM (77 FR 

10403, February 22, 2012) all repairs 

approved by a Boeing-authorized 

representative on parts listed in Section 

9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document that 

were found to be compliant with 14 CFR 

25.571 and 14 CFR 26.43(d). Boeing 

recommended ‘‘grandfathering’’ existing 

repairs to new CMRs/structural 

significant items (SSI) provided 

adequate damage tolerance has been 

performed at repair approval. 

We agree with the commenter. We 

have added a new paragraph (l)(5) to 

this final rule to allow the following 

repairs done before the effective date of 

this AD as acceptable methods of 

compliance where the inspections of the 

baseline structure cannot be 

accomplished: Repairs that are 

approved under both section 25.571 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

26.43(d)) by the Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes Organization Designation 

Authorization (ODA) that has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), to 

make those findings; provided that the 

repair specified an inspection program 

(inspection threshold, method, and 

repetitive interval); and that operators 

revised their maintenance or inspection 

program, as applicable, to include the 

inspection program for the repair. 

Request for Clarification of Certain 

AMOC Section 

Boeing requested that we revise 

paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM (77 FR 

10403, February 22, 2012) to include 

inspecting as an alternative method to 

satisfy the damage tolerance 

requirements. (Paragraph (k)(3) of the 

NPRM corresponds to paragraph (l)(3) of 

this final rule.) Boeing stated that doing 

so would clarify that, in cases where an 

operator cannot perform an inspection 

‘‘per D622T001–9 Subsection B and 

D622T001–DTR in baseline 

configuration,’’ an alternate inspection 

type that satisfies the damage tolerance 

requirements can be used with an 

appropriate AMOC approval. 

We disagree with adding the 

requested text to this final rule. 

Paragraph c. of Section 2–7 of Chapter 

2, DER (designated engineering 

representative) Authority and 

Limitations, of FAA Order 8110.37E, 

DER Handbook, effective March 30, 

2011 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_

and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/ 

3679F39DB79BB

62A8625786A0066C662?

OpenDocument&Highlight=8110.37e), 

does permit an authorized DER or other 

authorized representative to approve an 

alternative inspection method, 

threshold, or interval, where a new 

repair or modification results in the 

inability to accomplish the existing ADmandated inspection, or necessitates a 

change in the existing AD-mandated 

inspection threshold. This delegation is 

already provided in paragraph (l)(3) of 

this final rule. No change has been made 

to the final rule in this regard. 

Request To Clarify the Compliance 

Time for the Reporting Requirements 

Delta Airlines (Delta) requested that 

we clarify the compliance time for the 

proposed reporting requirements. Delta 

stated that the instruction in Subsection 

B, Airworthiness Limitations— 

Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), Revision July 2011, or Revision 

February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44675 

Document, specifies reporting within 10 

days. Delta requested a change to state 

that reporting is required within 10 days 

after the airplane is returned to service, 

instead of 10 days after each individual 

finding. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. We have added new paragraph 

(i)(3) to this final rule to clarify that the 

compliance time for reporting is within 

10 days after the airplane is returned to 

service, instead of 10 days after each 

individual finding. We have also added 

new paragraph (j) to this final rule to 

include the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Burden Statement, and re-designated 

subsequent paragraphs accordingly. 

Other Changes to This Final Rule 

We have moved the information from 

Note 2 of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 

February 22, 2012) into paragraph (i)(2) 

of this final rule. 

We have clarified the language in 

paragraph (k) of this AD and added a 

reference to paragraph (l) of this AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered 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 (77 FR 

10403, February 22, 2012) for correcting 

the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 

February 22, 2012). 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 417 

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 

Revise airworthiness limitations [retained action from AD 

2003–18–10, Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003)].

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = 

$85.

$0 $85 $35,445 

Revise airworthiness limitations [new requirement] ................ 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = 

$85.

0 85 35,445 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to 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 control 

number for the collection of information 

required by this AD is 2120–0056. The 

paperwork cost associated with this AD 

has been detailed in the Costs of 

Compliance section of this document 

and includes time for reviewing 

instructions, as well as completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Therefore, all reporting associated with 

this AD is 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. 

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 have 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 

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 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

2003–18–10, Amendment 39–13301 (68 

FR 53503, September 11, 2003), and 

adding the following new AD: 

2014–14–04 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–17899; Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0145; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–066–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective September 5, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2003–18–10, 

Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 53503, 

September 11, 2003). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
44676 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

line numbers 1 through 997 inclusive. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 51, Standard Practices/Structures; 52, 

Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelle/Pylons; 55, 

Stabilizers; 56, Windows; and 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a re-evaluation 

of certain doors and flaps based on their 

fatigue-critical nature. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the 

principal structural elements (PSEs), which 

could adversely affect the structural integrity 

of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Revision of Section 9 of the 

Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of AD 2003–18–10, 

Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 53503, 

September 11, 2003), with clarification for 

revising the maintenance program. For Model 

767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series 

airplanes having line numbers 1 through 895 

inclusive: Within 18 months after October 16, 

2003 (the effective date of AD 2003–18–10), 

revise the maintenance program to 

incorporate Subsection B, Section 9, of 

Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001, 

entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements,’’ 

Revision October 2002, and Appendix B of 

Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001, 

Revision December 2002; or Subsection B, 

Airworthiness Limitations—Structural 

Limitations, of Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D622T001–9, Revision July 2011, of the 

Boeing 767 MPD Document. 

(h) Retained Alternative Inspections and 

Inspection Intervals 

This paragraph restates the alternative 

inspection and inspection interval 

limitations specified by paragraph (d) of AD 

2003–18–10, Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 

53503, September 11, 2003). Except as 

provided by paragraphs (i) and (l) of this AD: 

After the actions required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD have been accomplished, no 

alternative inspections or inspection 

intervals shall be approved for the structural 

significant items (SSIs) contained in Section 

9 of Boeing 767 MPD Document 

D622T001–9, Revision October 2002. 

(i) New Maintenance Program Revision 

(1) Within 18 months after the effective 

date of this AD, revise the maintenance 

program to incorporate the Limitations 

section in Subsection B, Airworthiness 

Limitations—Structural Inspections, of 

Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 

and Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision July 2011 or 

Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 

MPD Document. Doing this maintenance 

program revision terminates the requirements 

of paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial 

compliance times for the inspections are at 

the applicable times specified in Subsection 

B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural 

Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D622T001–9, Revision July 2011 or Revision 

February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD 

Document; or within 18 months after the 

effective date of this AD; whichever occurs 

later. 

(2) For the purposes of this AD, the terms 

PSEs as used in this AD, and SSIs as used 

in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations— 

Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision July 2011 or 

Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 

MPD Document, are considered to be 

interchangeable. 

(3) Reports specified in Section 9, 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision July 2011 or 

Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 

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 Section 9, 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision July 2011 or 

Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document. 

(j) 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. 

(k) Alternative Inspections and Inspection 

Intervals 

After the maintenance or inspection 

program has been revised as required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative 

actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be 

used unless the actions or intervals are 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this 

AD. 

(l) 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 

paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9–ANM-Seattle-ACO–AMOCRequests@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 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (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. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2003–18–10, 

Amendment 39–13301 (68 FR 53503, 

September 11, 2003), are approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding actions 

specified in this AD. 

(5) Repairs done before the effective date 

of this AD that meet the conditions specified 

in paragraphs (l)(5)(i), (l)(5)(ii), and (l)(5)(iii) 

of this AD are acceptable methods of 

compliance for the repaired area where the 

inspections of the baseline structure cannot 

be accomplished. 

(i) The repair was approved under both 

section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 

26.43(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(14 CFR 26.43(d)) by the Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes Organization Designation 

Authorization (ODA) that has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), to make those 

findings. 

(ii) The repair approval provides an 

inspection program (inspection threshold, 

method, and repetitive interval). 

(iii) Operators revised their maintenance or 

inspection program, as applicable, to include 

the inspection program (inspection 

threshold, method, and repetitive interval) 

for the repair. 

(m) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 425–917–6590; 

email: berhane.alazar@faa.gov. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44677 

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on September 5, 2014. 

(i) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision 

July 2011, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance 

Planning Data Document. 

(ii) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D622T001–9, Revision 

February 2014, of the Boeing 767 

Maintenance Planning Data Document. 

(4) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on October 16, 2003 (68 FR 

53503, September 11, 2003). 

(i) Appendix B of Boeing 767 Maintenance 

Planning Data Document D622T001, Revision 

December 2002. 

(ii) Subsection B, Section 9, of Boeing 767 

Maintenance Planning Data Document 

D622T001–9, Revision October 2002. 

(5) 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; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(6) You may view this service information 

at 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. 

(7) 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 July 3, 

2014. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17996 Filed 7–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0187; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–087–AD; Amendment 

39–17917; AD 2014–15–15] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Beechcraft 

Corporation Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Hawker Beechcraft 

Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft 

Company; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 

Inc. Ltd.) Model MU–300 airplanes, and 

Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Hawker Beechcraft 

Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft 

Company; Beech Aircraft Corporation) 

Model 400, 400A, and 400T airplanes. 

This AD was prompted by multiple 

reports of fatigue cracking in the 

horizontal stabilizer ribs. This AD 

requires repetitive inspections of the 

horizontal stabilizer rib assemblies for 

cracking, and replacement if necessary. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct such cracking, which could 

result in the failure of the horizontal 

stabilizer and loss of pitch control of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 

2014. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0187; 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 

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 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, 

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 

67209; phone: 316–946–4152; fax: 316– 

946–4107; email: paul.chapman@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain Beechcraft Corporation 

(Type Certificate Previously Held by 

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; 

Raytheon Aircraft Company; Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries, Inc. Ltd.) Model MU– 

300 airplanes Type Certificate 

previously held by Mitsubishi; 

Raytheon Aircraft Company) Model 

MU–300 airplanes, and Hawker 

Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Hawker Beechcraft 

Corporation; Raytheon Aircraft 

Company; Beech Aircraft Corporation) 

Model 400, 400A, and 400T airplanes. 

The NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18848). 

The NPRM was prompted by multiple 

reports of fatigue cracking in the 

horizontal stabilizer ribs. The NPRM 

proposed to require repetitive 

inspections of the horizontal stabilizer 

rib assemblies for cracking, and 

replacement if necessary. We are issuing 

this AD to detect and correct such 

cracking, which could result in the 

failure of the horizontal stabilizer and 

loss of pitch control of the airplane. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM (79 

FR 18848, April 4, 2014) or on the 

determination of the cost to the public. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

as proposed except for minor editorial 

changes. We have determined that these 

minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 

18848, April 4, 2014) for correcting the 

unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 18848, 

April 4, 2014). 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 735 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES