Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21077

pylons, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A340–54–4003, Revision 01, dated

April 26, 2000.

(c) If any discrepancy is found during any

inspection or rototest required by paragraphs

(a)(2) or (b)(1) of this AD, prior to further

flight, accomplish applicable repairs in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A330–57–3021, Revision 03, including

Appendices 01 and 02, dated November 5,

1999 (for Model A330 series airplanes), or

Airbus Service Bulletin A340–57–4025,

Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and

02, dated November 5, 1999 (for Model A340

series airplanes). If the service bulletin

specifies to contact the manufacturer for

appropriate action: Prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by either the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate; or the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de

l’Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent).

Note 2: Accomplishment of the

modifications required by paragraphs (a)(1)

and (a)(2) or paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) prior

to the effective date of this AD in accordance

with the service bulletins listed in Table 1,

as follows, is considered acceptable for

compliance with the applicable actions in

this AD:

TABLE 1.—PRIOR SERVICE BULLETINS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE FOR COMPLIANCE

Model Service bulletin Revision level Date

A330 .............................. A330–57–3021 Original ............................................................. March 25, 1996.

A330–57–3021 01 ..................................................................... September 1, 1998.

A330–57–3021 02 ..................................................................... April 9, 1999.

A330 .............................. A330–54–3005 Original ............................................................. March 25, 1996.

A340 .............................. A340–57–4025 Original ............................................................. March 25, 1996.

A340–57–4025 01 ..................................................................... September 1, 1998.

A340 .............................. A340–54–4003 Original ............................................................. March 25, 1996.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport

Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(f) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of

this AD, the actions must be done in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A330–57–3021, Revision 03, including

Appendices 01 and 02, dated November 5,

1999; Airbus Service Bulletin A340–57–4025,

Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and

02, dated November 5, 1999; Airbus Service

Bulletin A330–54–3005, Revision 01, dated

October 19, 1999; and Airbus Service

Bulletin A340–54–4003, Revision 01, dated

April 26, 2000; as applicable. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directives 2000–

178–121(B) and 2000–179–147(B), both dated

May 3, 2000.

Effective Date

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

May 14, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10338 Filed 4–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–276–AD; Amendment

39–12205; AD 2001–08–28]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 767

series airplanes, that requires revising

the Airworthiness Limitations Section

of the maintenance manual (767

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions

(ALI)). The revision will incorporate

into the ALI certain inspections and

compliance times to detect fatigue

cracking of principal structural elements

(PSE). This amendment is prompted by

analysis of data that identified specific

initial inspection thresholds and

repetitive inspection intervals for

certain PSE’s to be added to the ALI.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to ensure that fatigue cracking

of various PSE’s is detected and

corrected; such fatigue cracking could

adversely affect the structural integrity

of these airplanes.

DATES: Effective June 1, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 1,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Linda Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Craycraft, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington;

telephone (425) 227–2782; fax (425)

227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Boeing

Model 767 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4372). That

action proposed to require revising the

Airworthiness Limitations Section of

the maintenance manual (767

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions

(ALI)). The revision would incorporate

21078 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

into the ALI certain inspections and

compliance times to detect fatigue

cracking of principal structural elements

(PSE).

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (NPRM)

One commenter supports the NPRM.

1. Request To Use the Term Structural

Significant Item (SSI) Rather Than

‘‘Principal Structural Elements (PSE)’’

One commenter requests that a

clarifying note be added to the preamble

of the proposal to explain why the term

‘‘PSE’’ is used in the NPRM, rather than

‘‘SSI,’’ as used in the Boeing 767

Maintenance Planning Document

(MPD). The commenter states that such

a note may avoid confusion between the

use of the terms.

The FAA agrees that some

clarification is necessary. We

acknowledge that SSI’s are a subset of

PSE’s, however, the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) related to damage

tolerance refer only to PSE’s. Therefore,

for the purposes of this AD, we consider

the two terms interchangeable. A new

Note 3 has been added to the final rule

to clarify this information.

2. Request To Specify Proper MPD

Subsection

One commenter, the manufacturer,

notes that the reference in the NPRM to

‘‘Chapter B’’ of Section 9 of Boeing 767

MPD is incorrect. The commenter states

that the correct title is ‘‘Subsection B.’’

The FAA agrees and has revised the

final rule accordingly.

3. Request To Limit the Applicability of

the NPRM

One commenter requests that the

applicability of the NPRM be revised to

specifically exclude Boeing Model 767–

300F (freighter) series airplanes.

The FAA agrees that clarification to

specifically exclude Model 767–300F

airplanes is necessary. The preamble of

the NPRM specified that Model 767–

300F freighter airplanes are not

considered to be part of the applicability

of this AD since the revision of the ALI

that was in effect at the time of the first

delivery of a Model 767–300F freighter

already addressed the need for

inspections of PSE’s. However, to

ensure the clarity of this exclusion, we

have added a new Note 1 to the final

rule specifying that Model 767–300F

freighter airplanes are not affected by

this AD.

4. Requests Regarding Interpretation of

Need for an Alternative Method of

Compliance

One commenter requests that, prior to

the issuance of the final rule, the

manufacturer be required to develop

certain fatigue thresholds and damage

tolerance analysis on all repairs

installed per Boeing documents (e.g.,

service bulletins, structural repair

manuals (SRM’s), etc.). The commenter

explains that it interprets the language

of Note 1 of the NPRM to mean that, for

any repairs found on SSI’s during the

initial or repeat inspections, the

operator would be required to evaluate

the repair, obtain a recommendation

from a damage tolerance-certified

Designated Engineering Representative,

take corrective action, and obtain

AMOC approval before returning an

airplane to service. The commenter adds

that the time involved for

accomplishing those actions would

inevitably result in extended down-time

for the affected airplane, even though

the existing repairs were previously

FAA-approved. Another commenter

expresses concern that any repairs or

modifications to the SSI’s would

automatically require AMOC approval

and suggests that only those repairs or

modifications that prevent the operator

from performing the inspections would

need to apply for an AMOC. That same

commenter also expresses concern

about the length of time it takes for

approval of AMOC’s. The commenter

requests that, instead of applying for an

AMOC, the repair be analyzed for static

strength, with a damage tolerance

analysis to follow within one year.

The FAA does not agree with the

commenter’s request to require that the

manufacturer be required to develop,

prior to the issuance of the final rule,

certain fatigue thresholds and damage

tolerance analyses on all repairs

installed per Boeing documents (e.g.,

service bulletins, SRM’s, etc.). Boeing

Model 767 series airplanes are certified

to be damage tolerant; therefore, repairs

to these airplanes are also required to be

damage tolerant. With the addition to

the maintenance manual of the ALI’s

specified in this AD, both the original

Model 767 structure and the repairs

described in the 767 SRM are fully

damage tolerant and comply with the

applicable provisions of 14 CFR 25.571.

If an operator chooses to seek an

extension of the inspection thresholds

for certain repairs, it may do so per

paragraph (c) of this AD. No change is

necessary to the final rule in this regard.

However, the FAA considers that

some information contained in Note 2 of

the final rule should be clarified to

accommodate certain airplanes that are

required to have ALI’s included in the

maintenance program. Therefore, Note 2

(which revises Note 1 of the NPRM) of

this final rule addresses airplanes that

have been previously modified, altered,

or repaired in the areas addressed by

certain ALS inspections. Such

modifications, alterations, or repairs

may prevent the operator from being

able to accomplish the specified

inspections. We have provided guidance

for this determination in Advisory

Circular (AC) 25–1529. If the

requirements of an AD cannot be

performed, then operators must submit

a request for an approval of an AMOC

from the FAA, in accordance with the

provision of paragraph (c) of this final

rule. The new Note 2 of this AD is to

clarify when an AMOC would be

required.

5. Requests To Revise Paragraph (a) of

the NPRM

One commenter, the manufacturer,

reiterates that the NPRM would require

that Section 9 of the MPD be revised to

incorporate Chapter B. The commenter

concludes that, since the manufacturer

is the author of Section 9 of the MPD

and has already incorporated

Subsection B (the correct title of that

section, rather than ‘‘Chapter B’’), it is

unnecessary to require that action to be

accomplished by the issuance of an AD.

Another commenter, an airline operator,

states that revising the manufacturer’s

document is contrary to long-standing

industry practices, whereby companies

do not revise documents that are

created, published, and maintained by

other companies. Rather, as the

manufacturer points out, Section 9 of

the MPD is the manufacturer’s

responsibility, not the operators’.

The FAA does not agree. The

airworthiness limitations, like the

operating limitations, are a part of the

type certificate for an airplane. Once an

airworthiness certificate is issued for an

airplane certifying that it conforms to an

approved type design, this design is

‘‘locked’’ in the sense that the

manufacturer cannot unilaterally change

it for the subject airplane. Therefore,

when the manufacturer makes any

subsequent changes to the type

certificate, including changes to the

operating or airworthiness limitations,

those changes are legally required only

for products that are submitted for

airworthiness certification based on a

showing of conformity to the later

design.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21079

Thus, for many years, the FAA has

imposed operating restrictions that are

necessary to address identified unsafe

conditions by requiring revisions to the

operating limitations section of the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).

(Revision of the AFM by the type

certificate holder would be effective

only for airplanes produced after that

revision.) Similarly, Boeing’s revision to

the ALI was effective only for airplanes

later certificated with those revisions

included in their type certificate. For

this reason, as stated in the NPRM, we

must engage in rulemaking (i.e.,

issuance of an AD), in order to make the

revisions mandatory for previously

certificated airplanes.

While the ALI’s are contained in a

‘‘Boeing document’’ in the sense that

Boeing originally produced it, the

document, nevertheless, is a part of the

instructions for continued airworthiness

that operators must use to maintain the

airplane properly. As explained in the

NPRM, the effect of requiring that the

document be revised to incorporate the

current version of the ALI is that, in

accordance with 14 CFR part 91.403(c),

operators are then required to comply

with those limitations. This is analogous

to the effect of requiring a revision to

the operating limitations: in accordance

with 14 CFR Part 91.9(a), operators are

required to comply with the revised

operating limitations.

Of course, those operators that have

previously revised the ALI (or

incorporated the revision into their

maintenance programs) are given credit

for having previously accomplished the

requirements of this AD, as allowed by

the phrase, ‘‘unless accomplished

previously.’’ The legal effect is the same:

the operator is required to comply with

the limitations per 14 CFR part

91.403(c).

6. Request To Clarify Intent of the

NPRM

One commenter states that paragraph

(b) of the NPRM appears to conflict with

the original intent of the NPRM.

Paragraph (b) of the NPRM specifies

that, after revising the MPD in

accordance with paragraph (a) of the

NPRM, no alternative inspections or

inspection intervals shall be approved

for the PSE’s. The commenter explains

that it is not clear why paragraph (b) is

needed if the inspections were

accomplished in accordance with 14

CFR parts 43 and 91. The commenter

states that paragraph (b) of the NPRM

essentially defeats the stated purpose of

the NPRM, which is to have operators

record their AD compliance only once

(at the time the operator’s maintenance

program is changed), in order to reduce

the burden of record keeping and

tracking. Second, the commenter

explains that paragraph (b) of the NPRM

further conflicts with the stated purpose

of the NPRM since the ALI itself allows

operators certain flexibility in

inspection methods and repetitive

intervals (although not for initial

inspection thresholds) through the use

of Boeing’s Damage Tolerance Rating

(DTR) system.

The FAA does not agree. The purpose

of this AD is to address the identified

unsafe condition of fatigue cracking in

certain PSE’s. We have determined that,

in order to accomplish that purpose,

those airplanes must be brought into

compliance with the certification basis,

i.e., 14 CFR part 25.571, amendment 25–

45. We point out that paragraph (b) of

the final rule merely repeats and

enforces the provision presently existing

in the Boeing 767 MPD, which requires

any revision of the airworthiness

limitations to be approved by the Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. We

consider that paragraph (b) of the final

rule, therefore, does not conflict with

the intention to have operator’s record

their AD compliance only once.

Additionally, this AD does not

specifically address (or restrict) the use

of the DTR specified in the ALI. No

change is necessary to the final rule in

this regard.

7. Request To Provide Further

Clarification Regarding Flight Cycles

vs. Flight Hour Thresholds

One commenter, the airplane

manufacturer, states that, since there is

reference to the 25,000 flight cycle

threshold and 50,000 flight cycle

threshold (in the preamble of the

NPRM), it should also be noted that

there is a flight cycle versus flight hour

threshold for some flight length

sensitive items. Also, the commenter

notes that there are some other

restrictions, such as a calendar

threshold of 20 years unless an FAAapproved Corrosion Prevention and

Control Program (CPCP) has been

implemented, as well as a requirement

to revert any escalated structural

inspections back to the intervals

specified in Section 8 of the MPD.

The FAA acknowledges that there is

other information available in the

revision to the MPD, which was not

discussed in the preamble of the NPRM

in the section entitled ‘‘New Revision of

ALI.’’ The information that we provided

in the preamble of the NPRM was

intended to be representative of the

information that was used to determine

that none of the airplanes affected is

likely to reach the threshold for certain

PSE’s (identified as SSI’s in the ALI).

Since the ‘‘New Revision of ALI’’

section does not reappear in the final

rule, no change to the final rule is

necessary in this regard.

8. Request To Revise Certain SSI

Repairs

One commenter requests that the

requirements of the NPRM be revised to

reflect certain repair actions for SSI’s

that were installed before the effective

date of the AD, and certain other repair

actions for SSI’s that are installed after

the effective date of the AD.

The FAA does not agree that the

requirements of the NPRM should be

revised. In the case of this final rule, the

required action is simply to revise

Section 9 of the Model 767 MPD by

incorporating Subsection B, dated

August 1997. The specific information

contained in the MPD is developed

(with the concurrence of the FAA) and

then printed by the manufacturer. The

FAA notes that the requirements of this

AD do not address the accomplishment

of the specific information contained in

Subsection B. As discussed previously,

14 CFR 91.403(c) imposes that

requirement, and NOTE 2 has been

added to the AD to addresss the possible

need to obtain approval of alternative

methods of compliance for certain

repairs. Therefore, no further change to

the final rule is necessary in this regard.

9. Request To Extend the Compliance

Time

One commenter, an operator, requests

that the compliance time be revised

from ‘‘within 3 years after the effective

date of the AD’’ to ‘‘within 4 years after

the effective date of the AD.’’ The

commenter states that the manufacturer

originally recommended a compliance

time of 5 years and, consequently, the

commenter has been using a 5-year

compliance time in its maintenance

planning activities. The commenter

states that a 3-year grace period would

cause excessive airplane downtimes and

lost revenue costs.

The FAA does not agree with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. For the reasons

discussed in the preamble of the NPRM,

this AD allows operators up to 3 years

after the effective date of this AD to

accomplish the ALI revision required by

this AD. This period provides operators

of airplanes that are approaching or

have already reached the 25,000-flightcycle inspection threshold with a

reasonable amount of time to plan and

perform the inspections. We note that

only a few PSE’s in the ALI have an

initial inspection threshold of 25,000

total flight cycles. The majority of PSE’s

in the ALI have an initial inspection

21080 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

threshold that corresponds to the design

service objective of the affected airplane

(i.e., 50,000 total flight cycles for

passenger airplanes). In addition, the

Model 767 Structures Working Group,

whose membership is composed of

many of the major operators worldwide

and almost all U.S. operators, has been

aware of the specific contents and

requirements of this ALI revision since

August 1996. These facts have led us to

determine that 3 years is an appropriate

and reasonable period of time for

operators to comply with the

requirements of this AD. However, an

alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety

may be requested in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this AD.

10. Requests To Require Incorporation

of ALI Into Operations Specifications

One commenter, the manufacturer,

suggests that the NPRM be revised to

require the operators to incorporate the

ALI’s into the appropriate Maintenance

Program Specification (Operations

Specification).

The FAA does not agree that

incorporation of the ALI’s into the

Operations Specifications (Ops Specs) is

appropriate. Operation of certain

transport airplanes may be exclusively

under the provisions and requirements

of Part 91, and therefore, operators

would not even be required to maintain

Operations Specifications. Further, Ops

Specs simply authorize the use of a

Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance

Program (CAMP) for the operator’s

individual airplane models and specify,

in particular, that procedures,

standards, checks, service, repair, and/

or preventive maintenance, checks or

tests, shall be described in the certificate

holder’s manual.

The commenter further requests that

the requirements of the NPRM be

written such that the operator’s

Operations Specification is

continuously updated with the current

revision of Section 9 of the MPD. If that

process is not possible, the commenter

suggests that the requirements be

accomplished in accordance with the

latest FAA-approved revision of Section

9 of the MPD.

The FAA does not agree with the

commenter’s requests. We note that the

commenter provided no justification or

benefit of implementing the suggested

changes. In response to the suggestion

that the Ops Specs be continuously

updated with current revisions of

Section 9 of the MPD, the FAA notes

that incorporation of new revisions of

the ALI into the Ops Specs would have

the effect of imposing new requirements

without providing notice to the public

and opportunity for comment.

For a similar reason, to change

paragraph (a) of this AD to incorporate

any revision of Boeing Document

D622T001–9 other than the ‘‘June 1997’’

(as specified in the NPRM), also would

have the effect of imposing new

requirements without providing notice

to the public and opportunity for

comment. We consider that delaying

this action to provide for such notice to

the public would be inappropriate since

we have determined that an unsafe

condition exists, and that inspections

must be conducted to ensure continued

safety. However, paragraph (c) of the

final rule does provide affected

operators the opportunity to request

approval of an alternative method of

compliance.

Editorial Changes Appearing in the

Final Rule

To accommodate the addition of the

new notes in the final rule, the FAA has

revised the numbering of the notes that

appeared in the NPRM.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 660 Boeing

Model 767 series airplanes (excluding

Model 767–300F freighters) of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 250 airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD,

that it will take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

required actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$15,000, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Although this AD requires only a

revision to the current ALI, the FAA

recognizes that the inspections

contained in the ALI will then be

required by 14 CFR parts 43 and 91. We

estimate that it will take approximately

1,000 work hours to accomplish all of

the ALI inspections. At an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour, the cost to

perform the ALI inspections (14 CFR

parts 43 and 91, rather than by 14 CFR

part 39) will be approximately $60,000

per airplane. We note that the majority

of work hours needed to perform the

inspections will be expended when an

affected airplane reaches the 50,000

flight-cycle-threshold. Based upon

current airplane utilization, we estimate

that no airplane will reach this

threshold for at least 10 years.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21081

2001–08–28 Boeing: Amendment 39–12205.

Docket 97–NM–276–AD.

Applicability: Model 767–200 and -300

series airplanes having line numbers 1

through 669 inclusive, certificated in any

category.

Note 1: Boeing Model 767–300F freighter

airplanes are not affected by this AD.

Note 2: This AD requires revisions to

certain operator maintenance documents to

include new inspections. Compliance with

these inspections is required by 14 CFR part

91.403(c). For airplanes that have been

previously modified, altered, or repaired in

the areas addressed by these inspections, the

operator may not be able to accomplish the

inspections described in the revisions. In this

situation, to comply with 14 CFR part

91.403(c), the operator must request approval

for an alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include a description of

changes to the required inspections that will

ensure the continued damage tolerance of the

affected structure. The FAA has provided

guidance for this determination in Advisory

Circular (AC) 25–1529.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure continued structural integrity of

these airplanes, accomplish the following:

Revise Section 9 of the Boeing 767

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)

(a) Within 3 years after the effective date

of this AD, revise Section 9 of the Boeing 767

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document

entitled ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations and

Certification Maintenance Requirements

(CMR’s)’’ to incorporate Subsection B of

Boeing Document D622T001–9, Revision

‘‘June 1997.’’

Note 3: The referenced Subsection B

contains a requirement that cracks found

during the specified inspections be reported

to the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), FAA. Information collection

requirements contained in this regulation

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, the

terms Principal Structural Elements (PSE’s)

as used in this AD, and Structural Significant

Items (SSI’s) as used in Section 9 of Model

767 MPD Document, are considered to be

interchangeable.

Alternative Inspections and Inspection

Intervals

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of

this AD: After the actions required by

paragraph (a) of this AD have been

accomplished, no alternative inspections or

inspection intervals shall be approved for the

SSI’s contained in Boeing 767 MPD

Document D622T001–9, Revision ‘‘June

1997.’’

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Subsection B of Boeing 767

Maintenance Planning Data Document

D622T001–9, Revision ‘‘June 1997’’, which

contains the following list of effective pages:

Page No.

Revision date

shown on

page

List of Effective Pages, Page

9.0–5.

June 1997.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 1, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10337 Filed 4–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NM–82–AD; Amendment

39–12204; AD 2001–08–27]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model L–1011 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Lockheed Model

L–1011 series airplanes. This action

requires inspection of the windshield

heat wire bundle for chafing or damage,

and inspection of the harness clamps of

the wire bundle for damage; and

corrective actions, if necessary. For

certain airplanes, this action also

requires rerouting of the windshield

heat wire bundle. This action is

necessary to prevent chafing or damage

of the windshield heat wire bundle,

which could cause arcing and result in

smoke and fire in the cockpit. This

action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective May 14, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 14,

2001.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–

82–AD, 1601 Linda Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9-

anm-iarcomment@faa.gov. Comments

sent via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2001-NM–82-AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Lockheed

Martin & Logistics Center, 120 Orion

Street, Greenville, South Carolina

29605. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30349; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Peters, Program Manager, Program