21146 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

FIGURE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) OF THIS AD—GEARBOX S/NS

00095 00107 00139 00160 00171 00172 00179 00189 00224 

00327 00396 00432 00459 00481 00564 00688 00697 00884 

00923 00957 01019 01048 01081 01082 01106 01125 01236 

01237 01241 01245 01288 01311 01314 01351 01357 01361 

01388 01418 01427 01487 01529 01534 01561 01598 01634 

01655 01704 01711 01755 01762 01786 01844 01881 01883 

01884 01887 01891 01893 01904 01928 01933 01935 01951 

01977 01978 01986 02026 02040 02041 02127 02141 02167 

02189 02228 02289 02298 02304 02314 02316 02354 02432 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code 8510, Reciprocating Engine Front 

Section. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a loss of engine 

power in flight caused by oil leaking from the 

gearbox radial shaft sealing ring that 

contaminated the clutch. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent failure of the clutch, loss 

of engine power in flight, and reduced 

control of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

(1) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(2) Within 55 flight hours after the effective 

date of this AD: 

(i) Replace the clutch with a dual mass 

flywheel. Use Technify Motors Service 

Bulletin (SB) No. SB TMG 125–1020 P1, 

Initial Issue, dated January 27, 2016, to do 

the replacement. 

(ii) Install a start phase monitoring system 

and software mapping in accordance with the 

requirements of FAA AD 2015–21–01 (80 FR 

64314, October 23, 2015); and 

(iii) Inspect the rear radial shaft sealing 

ring on the gearbox for oil leakage in 

accordance with Figures 2 and 3 of Technify 

Motors SB No. SB TMG 125–1020 P1, Initial 

Issue, dated January 27, 2016. If an oil leak 

is detected, replace the gearbox with a part 

eligible for installation before the next flight. 

(g) Installation Prohibition 

After the effective date of this AD: 

(1) Do not install an engine that is 

equipped with a clutch and has an affected 

gearbox listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of 

this AD; 

(2) Do not install an affected gearbox on an 

engine unless it has passed the inspection 

required by paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD; 

and 

(3) Do not install a clutch on an engine 

previously modified in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD or 

already incorporating a dual mass flywheel. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to 

make your request. You may email your 

request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, 

Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238– 

7754; fax: 781–238–7199; email: 

robert.green@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency AD 2017–0034, dated 

February 20, 2017, for more information. You 

may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating it in Docket No. 

FAA–2017–0241. 

(3) Technify Motors GmbH Service Bulletin 

SB No. SB TMG 125–1020 P1, Initial Issue, 

dated January 27, 2016, can be obtained from 

Technify Motors GmbH using the contact 

information in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD. 

(4) For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Technify Motors 

GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14, D–09356 Sankt 

Egidien, Germany; phone: +49 37204 696 0; 

fax: +49 37204 696 29125; email: info@

centurion-engines.com. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

April 28, 2017. 

Robert J. Ganley, 

Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–09040 Filed 5–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–3697; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NM–143–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

that proposed to supersede AD 2011– 

01–15, which applies to certain The 

Boeing Company Model 757–200, 

–200CB, and –300 series airplanes. AD 

2011–01–15 requires repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the fuselage 

skin of the crown skin panel along the 

chem-milled step at certain stringers, 

and repair, if necessary. This action 

revises the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) by reducing the 

compliance time for certain inspections. 

We are proposing this AD to address the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the NPRM, we are reopening the 

comment period to allow the public the 

chance to comment on these proposed 

changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this SNPRM by June 19, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 21147 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this SNPRM, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: 

Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 

2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, 

Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562– 

797–1717; 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. It is also available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3697. 

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–2016– 

3697; 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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 

562–627–5348; fax: 562–627–5210; 

email: eric.schrieber@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2016–3697; Directorate Identifier 

2015–NM–143–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2011–01–15, 

Amendment 39–16572 (76 FR 1351, 

January 10, 2011) (‘‘AD 2011–01–15’’). 

AD 2011–01–15 applies to certain The 

Boeing Company Model 757–200, 

–200CB, and –300 series airplanes. AD 

2011–01–15 requires repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the fuselage 

skin of the crown skin panel along the 

chem-milled step at stringers S–4L and 

S–4R, from station (STA) 297 through 

STA 439, and repair if necessary. AD 

2011–01–15 also includes terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections of 

the repaired areas only. AD 2011–01–15 

resulted from reports of cracking in the 

fuselage skin of the crown skin panel. 

The NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on February 18, 2016 (81 FR 

8157) (‘‘The NPRM’’). The NPRM was 

prompted by reports of the initiation of 

new fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin 

of the crown skin panel along locally 

thinned channels adjacent to the chemmilled steps. The NPRM proposed to 

add repetitive inspections for cracking 

in additional areas and repair if 

necessary. The NPRM also proposed to 

remove airplanes from the applicability 

in AD 2011–01–15. The NPRM also 

proposed to add an optional skin panel 

replacement which would terminate all 

inspections and an optional 

preventative modification that would 

terminate certain inspections. 

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we have 

received a report that cracking was 

found earlier than the compliance time 

specified for the Zone 1 inspections 

identified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 

2, dated July 28, 2015 (referenced in the 

NPRM as the appropriate source of 

service information for accomplishing 

the specified actions). Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016, has been issued to reduce the 

compliance time for the Zone 1 

inspections. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. The service information describes 

procedures for repetitive external 

sliding probe eddy current (EC) and 

external spot-probe-medium-frequency 

EC inspections for cracking of the crown 

skin panel, repair, a preventive 

modification, and replacement of the 

crown skin panel. This service 

information is reasonably available 

because the interested parties have 

access to it through their normal course 

of business or by the means identified 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the NPRM. The following 

presents the comments received on the 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Support for the NPRM 

FedEx provided comments that 

support the intent of the NPRM. FedEx 

also stated that the inspection area is 

within the affected area of its passengerto-freighter modification per 

supplemental type certificate (STC) 

ST03562AT. FedEx noted that ST 

Aerospace will apply for an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC). 

Request To Reduce the Compliance 

Threshold for Zone 1 Inspections 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD to 

reduce the compliance threshold for the 

Zone 1 inspections from 18,000 to 

15,000 total flight cycles. Boeing stated 

that a grace period could be provided 

for airplanes that have exceeded 15,000 

total flight cycles. Boeing noted that an 

operator reported a crack finding in 

Zone 1 that occurred on an airplane 

with 15,722 total flight cycles. Boeing 

added that previous data supported the 

threshold of 18,000 flight cycles, but 

this new finding supports the 15,000 

total flight cycle threshold. Boeing 

stated that since FAA letter 120S14– 

181, dated March 26, 2014 (which 

extends the compliance times specified 

in AD 2011–01–15), and Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015 

(which specifies the 18,000 flight-cycle 

compliance time), were released, some 

operators may have suspended or 

delayed inspections beyond 15,000 total 

flight cycles and up to 18,000 total flight 

cycles. Boeing added that a short grace 

period of 200 flight cycles or 90 days 

(which is similar to the grace period in 

AD 2011–01–15) should be applied for 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21148 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

the initial inspection for airplanes on 

which the 15,000 total flight cycle 

threshold has been exceeded. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request to reduce the compliance 

threshold for the Zone 1 inspections 

from 18,000 to 15,000 total flight cycles, 

for the reasons provided. Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016, has been issued to reduce the 

compliance time for the Zone 1 

inspections. We have changed the 

compliance time specified in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this proposed AD and added a 

new paragraph (h) to this proposed AD 

to specify the reduced compliance 

times. 

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment 

of the Proposed Actions 

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that 

accomplishing the STC ST01518SE does 

not affect compliance with the actions 

specified in the NPRM. 

We agree with the commenter. We 

have redesignated paragraph (c) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) as (c)(1) 

and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this 

proposed AD to state that installation of 

STC ST01518SE does not affect the 

ability to accomplish the proposed 

actions. Therefore, for airplanes on 

which STC ST01518SE is installed, a 

‘‘change in product’’ AMOC approval 

request is not necessary to comply with 

the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. 

Request To Remove Certain Duplicate 

Language 

European Air Transport Leipzig 

GmbH and DHL Air Ltd. asked that we 

remove all duplicated data from the 

NPRM, and only refer to the compliance 

tables specified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. 

The commenters stated that the 

compliance information is contained in 

detail in the referenced service 

information, and is repeated in the 

NPRM without benefit of clarification. 

The commenters added that the 

stringers identified for inspection in 

paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of the 

proposed AD are incorrect, and should 

refer to inspection Zone 3 containing 

stringers S–3L, S–2L, S–1, S–2R, and 

S–3R. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters’ request. We agree to revise 

this proposed AD for clarity but we do 

not agree to remove all of the details for 

the required actions in this proposed 

AD. The stringers identified for 

inspection in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and 

(g)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD are correct, 

as specified in the referenced service 

information. However, paragraphs 

(g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD 

(in the NPRM) should have specified 

between stringers S–3L to S–3R instead 

of ‘‘at stringers S–3L and S–3R.’’ Since 

the stringer location is clear in the 

service information, we have removed 

the reference to the stringers in 

paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of this 

proposed AD. Instead, we have added a 

reference to the Zone 3 areas of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

Request To Clarify Zone 1 Inspection 

Language 

Boeing and United Airlines (UA) 

asked that we clarify the inspection 

language specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed 

AD. Boeing asked that we include 

‘‘Zone 1 areas’’ and ‘‘as applicable’’ in 

the description. UA stated that it 

appears that the inspections are for 

‘‘Zone 1 areas.’’ Boeing stated that the 

Zone 1 areas are clearly delineated in 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 2, dated 

July 28, 2015. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

request for the reason provided. As 

stated previously, this proposed AD 

cites Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated 

December 2, 2016. We have clarified the 

inspection language in paragraph (g)(1) 

of this proposed AD. We have also 

clarified similar inspection language in 

paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD. 

Request To Clarify Optional 

Terminating Action 

UA asked that we clarify the optional 

terminating action in paragraph (j)(2) of 

the proposed AD, to eliminate the need 

for a new AMOC as terminating action 

for the inspections after replacing the 

crown skin panel using a method 

approved in accordance with paragraph 

(m) of the proposed AD. UA noted that 

Note (c) of Table 1, Note (b) of Table 2, 

and Note (b) of Table 3 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, 

stipulate that the skin replacement itself 

is considered terminating action to all 

inspections done in accordance with the 

referenced service information. UA 

added that this is based on the fact that 

the skin chem-mill process defect 

should not be present in the new skin. 

UA noted that this method of skin 

replacement is not part of the safety 

consideration, and should not require a 

new AMOC. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. We have clarified paragraph 

(k)(2) of this proposed AD (which was 

referred to as paragraph (j)(2) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM)) to add 

replacing the crown skin panel in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 

3, dated December 2, 2016, or using a 

method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(n) of this proposed AD (which was 

referred to as paragraph (m) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM)), terminates 

the inspections. 

Request To Address the Possibility That 

Cracking May Have Been Found During 

Inspections Required by AD 2011–01– 

15 

Boeing asked that we include the 

possibility that cracking may have been 

found during the inspections required 

by paragraph (g) of AD 2011–01–15 in 

the provisional requirements of 

paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM). Boeing 

recommended including a reference to 

paragraph (g) of AD 2011–01–15 as 

follows: ‘‘For airplanes on which any 

crack is found during any inspections 

required by Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD 

or previously per AD 2011–01–15, 

Paragraph (g); or any repair . . . .’’ 

Boeing added that to exclude this 

language could lead operators to infer 

that it precludes previous findings from 

inclusion in the provisional statement. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concerns. As of the effective date of the 

final rule following this SNPRM, AD 

2011–01–15 will no longer exist since it 

will be superseded by the new AD. For 

this reason, we do not typically refer to 

a superseded AD in a new AD 

requirement. However, paragraphs (g)(2) 

and (g)(3) of this proposed AD do 

include findings from paragraph (g) of 

AD 2011–01–15. Paragraph (h) of AD 

2011–01–15 states that a repair must be 

done before further flight if any crack is 

found. Therefore, for any crack found 

before the effective date of the final rule, 

the crack should already have been 

repaired. Paragraph (g)(2) of this 

proposed AD states ‘‘. . . or any repair 

is installed that covers any portion of 

the Zone 1 inspection area . . .’’ and 

that statement covers the crack findings 

in AD 2011–01–15. 

In addition, paragraph (m) of this 

proposed AD provides credit for Zone 1 

inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) 

of this proposed AD, if those actions 

were performed before the effective date 

of the final rule using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, dated November 22, 2010; 

Revision 1, dated January 6, 2011; or 

Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. We 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 21149 

have not changed this proposed AD in 

this regard. 

Request To Include Credit for Previous 

Inspections 

Boeing and UA asked that a new 

paragraph (l)(3) be added to the 

proposed AD to provide credit for 

previous inspections done using 

previous revisions of the referenced 

service information to accomplish the 

inspections in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

AD. Those inspections were approved 

as an AMOC to AD 2011–01–15. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. It is not necessary to include 

credit for inspections that were done 

using previous revisions of the 

referenced service information, because 

credit for those inspections is already 

provided in paragraph (m) of this 

proposed AD. Therefore, we have not 

changed this proposed AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Include Credit for 

Previously Approved Repairs 

UA asked that we include credit 

language in this proposed AD for 

inspecting previously approved repairs, 

as specified in Note (a) of Table 1, Note 

(c) of Table 2, and Note (c) of Table 3 

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

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 2, dated 

July 28, 2015. UA stated that including 

this credit would avoid unnecessary 

work stoppage and minimize future 

AMOC requests for repairs which meet 

these criteria. 

We agree that operators are allowed 

credit for inspecting previously 

approved repairs, as specified in the 

notes in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. 

However, we do not agree that the 

language in those notes should be added 

to this proposed AD because Parts 1, 2, 

and 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016, also include those credit notes. 

This proposed AD requires 

accomplishing the specified actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions, which includes those notes 

in the Work Instructions; therefore, 

operators are given credit. We have not 

changed this proposed AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Clarify Certain Inspection 

Areas 

Boeing and UA asked that we clarify 

the inspection area in paragraphs 

(g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD 

to include the Zone 2 areas, and also 

that we clarify the inspection area in 

paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) of the 

proposed AD to include the Zone 3 

areas. Boeing and UA stated that the 

zones are identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

requests for the reason provided. As 

stated previously, this proposed AD 

cites Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated 

December 2, 2016. We have clarified the 

inspection language in paragraphs 

(g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(3)(i) and 

(g)(3)(ii), of this proposed AD to include 

the Zone 2 and Zone 3 areas, 

respectively. 

Request To Clarify Sections in Service 

Information With Inspection 

Instructions 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD to 

clarify that the inspections should be 

done using the instructions specified in 

Part 1 or Part 2 of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. 

Boeing stated that this clarification 

would avoid confusion. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reason provided. We 

have clarified paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(1)(i), 

and (g)(1)(ii) of this proposed AD to 

include doing the inspection as 

specified in Part 1 or Part 2 of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

Boeing and UA asked that we change 

paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD to 

clarify that the Zone 2 inspections 

should be done using the instructions 

specified in Part 4 or Part 5 of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 

2015. Boeing stated that those areas are 

clearly identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, 

and should be included for clarity. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reason provided. We 

have clarified paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(2)(i), 

and (g)(2)(ii) of this proposed AD to 

include doing the Zone 2 inspections as 

specified in Part 4 or Part 5 of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

Boeing and UA asked that we change 

paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD to 

clarify that the Zone 3 inspections 

should be done using the instructions 

specified in Part 6 or Part 7 of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 

2015. Boeing and UA stated that those 

areas are clearly identified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 

2015, and should be included for 

clarity. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

request for the reason provided. We 

have clarified paragraphs (g)(3), (g)(3)(i), 

and (g)(3)(ii) of this proposed AD to 

include doing the Zone 3 inspections as 

specified in Part 6 or Part 7 of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. The reference to Part 6 and Part 

7 also applies to the repetitive 

inspections. 

Request To Clarify Inspection Language 

Boeing asked that we clarify the 

inspection language in paragraph (j)(1) 

of the proposed AD to better describe 

the inspections required when doing the 

preventative modification. Boeing stated 

that it should specify doing high 

frequency eddy current open-hole 

inspections for cracking in existing 

fastener holes. Boeing noted that Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

53–0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 

2015, clearly specifies using an openhole inspection, and added that if this 

inspection is not defined it would 

permit operators to do a surface 

inspection around the fasteners, which 

is not sufficient to ensure there is no 

cracking in the fastener holes. 

Boeing also asked that we change the 

paragraph identifier at the end of 

paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD 

from (g) to (g)(1) since the referenced 

inspection is actually required by 

paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD. 

Boeing also asked that we change that 

paragraph identifier in paragraphs (l)(1) 

and (l)(2) of the proposed AD. Boeing 

stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed 

AD merely refers to the inspection 

paragraphs. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

requests for the reasons provided. We 

have clarified the inspection language in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD 

(which was referred to as paragraph 

(j)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) 

to include ‘‘. . . open-hole inspections 

for cracking in existing fastener holes.’’ 

We have also changed the paragraph 

identifiers in paragraphs (k)(1) and (m) 

of this proposed AD (which were 

referred to as paragraphs (j)(1), (l)(1), 

and (l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM)) to specify paragraph (g)(1) of 

this proposed AD accordingly. 

Request To Clarify the Repair Area 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the 

proposed AD to clarify that the repair 

can cover ‘‘any portion’’ of the Zone 1 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21150 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

area, and asked that the description be 

changed to include those words. Boeing 

stated that currently the inspection area 

specified in those paragraphs could be 

interpreted as a repair that would need 

to cover the entire Zone 1 inspection 

area; however, operators typically 

install local repairs in areas where 

cracks are found. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reason provided. We 

have clarified paragraphs (g)(2) and 

(g)(3) of this proposed AD to include the 

words ‘‘any portion’’ of the Zone 1 

repair area to be inspected. 

Request To Clarify the Description of 

the Preventative Modification 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the 

proposed AD to clarify that ‘‘any 

preventative modification’’ is actually 

‘‘the optional Zone 1 preventative 

modification specified in paragraph 

(j)(1) of the NPRM.’’ Boeing stated that 

there is only one specific preventative 

modification specified in the referenced 

service information that necessitates the 

inspections in paragraphs (g)(2) and 

(g)(3) of the proposed AD. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reason provided. We 

have clarified paragraphs (g)(2) and 

(g)(3) of this proposed AD to include the 

language provided by the commenter. 

Request To Clarify Exceptions 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (k)(3) of the proposed AD to 

clarify that the exception covers 

cracking found during any inspection 

required by paragraph (h) or (j)(1) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM). Boeing 

stated repairing any crack found during 

the inspection before installation of the 

preventative modification in paragraph 

(h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) 

should also be an exception. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. Paragraph (j) of this proposed 

AD (which was referred to as paragraph 

(i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) 

already specifies repairing any cracking 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (i) of this proposed AD 

(which was referred to as paragraph (h) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)), as 

well as inspections required by 

paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of 

this proposed AD. Paragraph (k)(3) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM) was 

intended to address cracking found 

during the preventative modification 

specified in paragraph (j)(1) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM). For clarity 

in this proposed AD, we have added the 

corrective action for cracking found 

during the inspection specified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD 

(which was referred to as paragraph 

(j)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) 

into paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed 

AD. We have also removed paragraph 

(k)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) 

from this proposed AD. 

Request To Clarify Certain AMOC 

Language 

Two commenters requested that we 

clarify whether existing AMOCs are 

approved. UA asked that paragraph 

(m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) be changed to clarify that repairs 

approved previously as AMOCs to AD 

2011–01–15 require no further 

evaluation or approval. UA stated that 

operators were required to repair any 

finding with a repair that included an 

AMOC to AD 2011–01–15. UA stated 

that the current language in paragraph 

(m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) would invalidate all such 

AMOCs, forcing operators to submit 

new requests for approval for each 

previously approved repair. In addition, 

UA asked that we include a new 

paragraph (l)(3) to provide credit for 

inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) that 

were approved as an AMOC to AD 

2011–01–15. 

Boeing asked if paragraph (m)(4) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM) meant 

that new AMOCs are needed for all 

AMOCs to AD 2011–01–15. Boeing 

asked that credit be given for 

inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) that 

were approved as an AMOC to AD 

2011–01–15 in Boeing Alternative 

Method of Compliance Notice 757–53– 

0097–AMOC–01, dated March 28, 2011, 

and stated in FAA letter 120S–11–13, 

dated January 19, 2011. Boeing stated 

that the AMOC allowed a longer interval 

for the inspections that are now 

incorporated in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. 

Boeing also noted that Boeing 

Alternative Method of Compliance 

Notice 757–53–0097 AMOC 03, dated 

March 28, 2014, should be rescinded 

since new data shows that a 15,000 total 

flight cycle threshold is appropriate 

instead of 18,000 total flight cycles. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. Although paragraph (m)(4) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM) 

specified that AMOCs approved for AD 

2011–01–15, are not approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding 

provisions of paragraph (g) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM); after 

further review we have determined 

those AMOCs should continue to be 

approved, except as of the effective date 

of this proposed AD, AMOCs that 

extend the initial compliance times 

specified in AD 2011–01–15 are no 

longer approved for the compliance 

time extension and instead, the 

compliance times required by this 

proposed AD must be complied with. 

Boeing Alternative Method of 

Compliance Notice 757–53–0097 AMOC 

03, dated March 28, 2014, extended the 

initial compliance times specified in AD 

2011–01–15, and as stated previously, 

we have received new data that does not 

justify the extended compliance times. 

We have changed paragraph (n)(4) of 

this proposed AD (which was referred to 

as paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD 

(in the NPRM)) accordingly. 

Boeing asked that paragraph (m)(3) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be 

changed from ‘‘For a repair method to 

be approved the repair method, 

modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification 

basis of the airplane and the approval 

must specifically refer to this AD’’ to 

‘‘For a repair method, modification 

deviation, or alteration deviation to be 

approved the repair method, 

modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification 

basis of the airplane and the approval 

must specifically refer to this AD.’’ 

Boeing stated that this approval needs to 

specify not only for a repair method to 

be approved, but also for modification 

and alteration deviations to be 

approved, they must meet type 

certification. 

We agree that some clarification is 

necessary. We have clarified paragraph 

(n)(3) of this proposed AD (which was 

referred to as paragraph (m)(3) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM)) as follows: 

‘‘An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any 

repair, modification, or alteration 

required by this AD if it is approved by 

the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) that has been authorized by the 

Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make 

those findings. To be approved, the 

repair method, modification deviation, 

or alteration deviation must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

the approval must specifically refer to 

this AD.’’ 

Request To Correct Typographical 

Error 

Boeing asked that we change the 

punctuation following the word 

‘‘repair’’ in the first sentence of 

paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM) from a period to a comma. 

Boeing noted that this is a punctuation 

error. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request and have corrected the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 21151 

punctuation in paragraph (n)(3) of this 

proposed AD (which was referred to as 

paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM)) accordingly. 

Concerns About Correcting Unsafe 

Condition 

A commenter, Jonathan Fortune, 

stated that it is imperative that any 

potentially catastrophic structural issues 

identified in any airplanes be promptly 

corrected. Mr. Fortune added that repair 

costs are greatly outweighed by the 

potential marketing and industry 

disaster that would occur if these 

airplanes crashed. Mr. Fortune noted 

that Boeing should not be able to 

operate these airplanes without 

addressing these issues. Mr. Fortune 

stated that he is willing to pay for 

increased air travel costs in order to get 

the sense of safety established through 

compliance with this regulation. 

We acknowledge and appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns. The FAA works 

to ensure that all unsafe conditions are 

addressed in a timely manner in 

accordance with FAA risk management 

policies that are designed to promote 

aviation safety. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. Certain changes described 

above expand the scope of the NPRM. 

As a result, we have determined that it 

is necessary to reopen the comment 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM 

This SNPRM would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously. For information on the 

procedures and compliance times, see 

this service information at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3697. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspections (Zone 1) 

[Retained actions 

from AD 2011–01– 

15].

2 work-hour × $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle.$0 .......................... $170 per inspection 

cycle.

$110,840 per inspection 

cycle. 

Inspections (Zones 2 

and 3) [new proposed action].

Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to 

$340 per inspection cycle.

$0 .......................... Up to $340 per inspection cycle.Up to $221,680 per inspection cycle. 

Optional modification Up to 615 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up 

to $52,275.

Up to $26,496 ....... Up to $78,771 ........... Up to $51,358,692. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the optional replacement 

specified in this proposed AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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) 

2011–01–15, Amendment 39–16572 (76 

FR 1351, January 10, 2011), and adding 

the following new AD. 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2016–3697; Directorate Identifier 2015– 

NM–143–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by June 19, 

2017. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21152 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2011–01–15, 

Amendment 39–16572 (76 FR 1351, January 

10, 2011) (‘‘AD 2011–01–15’’). 

(c) Applicability 

(1) This AD applies to The Boeing 

Company Model 757–200 and –300 series 

airplanes, certificated in any category, as 

identified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, 

dated December 2, 2016. 

(2) Installation of Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01518SE (http://

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/

38B606833BBD98B386257FAA00602538?

OpenDocument&Highlight=st01518se) does 

not affect the ability to accomplish the 

actions required by this AD. Therefore, for 

airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is 

installed, a ‘‘change in product’’ alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) approval 

request is not necessary to comply with the 

requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of the 

initiation of fatigue cracking in the fuselage 

skin of the crown skin panel along locally 

thinned channels adjacent to the chemmilled steps. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage 

skin of the crown skin panel, which could 

result in pressure venting and consequent 

rapid decompression of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections 

Do the applicable inspections required by 

paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. 

(1) For all airplanes: Within the 

compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of 

this AD, do the Zone 1 inspection specified 

in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

Repeat the applicable Part 1 or Part 2 

inspection thereafter at the applicable times 

specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, 

dated December 2, 2016. Accomplishing the 

preventative modification specified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this AD or the 

replacement specified in paragraph (k)(2) of 

this AD terminates the inspections required 

by this paragraph. 

(i) Do an external sliding probe eddy 

current (EC) inspection for cracking of the 

crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 1 

areas specified in, and in accordance with, 

Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

(ii) Do an external spot-probe-mediumfrequency EC inspection for cracking of the 

crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 1 

areas specified in, and in accordance with 

Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

(2) For airplanes on which any crack is 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; or any repair is 

installed that covers any portion of the Zone 

1 inspection area specified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, 

Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016; or the 

optional Zone 1 preventative modification 

specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD is 

installed: At the applicable time specified in 

table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016, except as required by paragraph (l)(1) 

of this AD: Do the Zone 2 inspection 

specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of 

this AD. Repeat the applicable Part 4 or Part 

5 inspection thereafter at the applicable times 

specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, 

dated December 2, 2016. Accomplishing the 

replacement specified in paragraph (k)(2) of 

this AD terminates the inspections required 

by this paragraph. 

(i) Do an external sliding probe EC 

inspection for cracking of the crown skin 

panel in the applicable Zone 2 areas 

specified in, and in accordance with, Part 4 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

(ii) Do an external spot-probe-mediumfrequency EC inspection for cracking of the 

crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 2 

areas specified in, and in accordance with, 

Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

(3) For airplanes on which any crack is 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; or any repair is 

installed that covers any portion of the Zone 

1 inspection area specified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, 

Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016; or the 

optional Zone 1 preventative modification 

specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD is 

installed: At the applicable time specified in 

table 3 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016, except as required by paragraph (l)(1) 

of this AD, do the Zone 3 inspection 

specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of 

this AD. Repeat the applicable Part 6 or Part 

7 inspection thereafter at the applicable times 

specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, 

dated December 2, 2016. Accomplishing the 

replacement specified in paragraph (k)(2) of 

this AD terminates the inspections required 

by this paragraph. 

(i) Do an external sliding probe EC 

inspection for cracking of the crown skin 

panel in the applicable Zone 3 areas 

specified in, and in accordance with, Part 6 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

(ii) Do an external spot-probe-mediumfrequency EC inspection for cracking of the 

crown skin panel in the applicable Zone 3 

areas, specified in, and in accordance with, 

Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016. 

(h) Initial Compliance Time for Inspection 

Required by Paragraph (g)(1) of This AD 

Within the applicable compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), 

and (h)(4) of this AD, whichever occurs 

latest: Do the initial inspection required by 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. 

(1) For all airplanes: Before the 

accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles. 

(2) For airplanes on which an external 

sliding probe EC inspection for Zone 1, as 

specified in Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–53–0097, has been done as of 

the effective date of this AD: Within 620 

flight cycles after accomplishing the most 

recent external sliding probe EC inspection 

for Zone 1. 

(3) For airplanes on which an external 

spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection 

for Zone 1, as specified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, has 

been done as of the effective date of this AD: 

Within 200 flight cycles after accomplishing 

the most recent external spot-probe-mediumfrequency EC inspection for Zone 1. 

(4) For all airplanes: Within 200 flight 

cycles or 90 days after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs first. 

(i) Post-Preventive Modification 

Supplemental Inspections 

For airplanes on which a preventive 

modification has been installed as specified 

in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions 

of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016: At the applicable time specified in 

table 4 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016; do eddy current and detailed 

inspections for cracking of the applicable 

areas of the fuselage skin of the doublers, 

triplers, and fillers of the preventive 

modification, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable times specified in table 4 of 

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

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016. 

(j) Repair 

If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g)(1), 

(g)(2), (g)(3), or (i) of this AD, repair before 

further flight using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (n) of this AD. Doing the repair 

ends the repetitive inspections for the 

repaired area only. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 21153 

(k) Optional Terminating Actions 

(1) Accomplishing the preventative 

modification, including doing high frequency 

EC open-hole inspections for cracking in the 

existing fastener holes, in accordance with 

Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 

2016, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) 

of this AD, terminates the inspections 

required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, 

provided the preventative modification is 

done before further flight after accomplishing 

an inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of 

this AD. If any cracking is found during any 

high frequency EC open-hole inspection, 

before further flight, repair using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. 

(2) Replacing the crown skin panel 

between station (STA) 297 and STA 439, and 

stringers S–4L and S–4R, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–53– 

0097, Revision 3, dated December 2, 2016, or 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of 

this AD, terminates the inspections required 

by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this 

AD. 

(l) Exceptions to Service Information 

Specifications and Preventative Modification 

(1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated 

December 2, 2016, specifies a compliance 

time ‘‘after the Revision 2 date of this service 

bulletin,’’ or ‘‘after the Revision 3 date of this 

service bulletin,’’ this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD. 

(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 3, dated 

December 2, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing 

for repair instructions: Before further flight, 

repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (n) of this AD. 

(m) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for Zone 1 

inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of 

this AD, if those actions were performed 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–53–0097, dated November 22, 2010 

(which was incorporated by reference in AD 

2011–01–15); Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, Revision 1, 

dated January 6, 2011; or Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–53–0097, 

Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (o)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-LAACO-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, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. To be 

approved, the repair method, modification 

deviation, or alteration deviation must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2011–01–15 

are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of 

this AD; except, as of the effective date of this 

AD, AMOCs that extend the initial 

compliance times specified in AD 2011–01– 

15 are no longer approved for the compliance 

time extension and the compliance times 

required by this AD must be complied with. 

(5) For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (n)(5)(i) and (n)(5)(ii) apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. An AMOC is required 

for any deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627– 

5348; fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

Eric.Schrieber@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., 

MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; 

telephone 562–797–1717; 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 7, 

2017. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–07938 Filed 5–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2017–0357] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Potomac River, Newburg, 

MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone for 

certain waters of the Potomac River. 

This action is necessary to provide for 

the safety of life on navigable waters 

during a fireworks display in Charles 

County near Newburg, MD, on June 17, 

2017. This proposed rulemaking would 

prohibit persons and vessels from 

entering the safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Maryland-National Capital Region or a 

designated representative. We invite 

your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before June 5, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2017–0357 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald 

Houck, Sector Maryland-National 

Capital Region Waterways Management 

Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

410–576–2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On April 11, 2017, Gilligan’s Pier of 

Newburg, MD, notified the Coast Guard 

that it will be conducting a shortduration aerial fireworks display at 9 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS