This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

52015 

Vol. 82, No. 216 

Thursday, November 9, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–9067; Product 

Identifier 2016–NM–043–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 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

which applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 

747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 

747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747– 

400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes. This action revises the 

NPRM by adding a reporting 

requirement. We are proposing this 

airworthiness directive (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 changes. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 

62031), is reopened. 

We must receive comments on this 

SNPRM by December 26, 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. 

• 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 90740–5600; telephone 

562–797–1717; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

9067; 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 SNPRM, 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: Bill 

Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6432; fax: 425– 

917–6590; email: bill.ashforth@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–2016–9067; Product Identifier 

2016–NM–043–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this SNPRM. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

SNPRM 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 SNPRM. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 

747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747– 

300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 

747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 

62031). The NPRM was prompted by a 

report of fatigue cracking in airplanes 

that are approaching or have exceeded 

their design service objective and a 

structural reevaluation that identified 

additional structural elements that 

qualify as structural significant items 

(SSIs). The NPRM proposed to require 

revising the maintenance or inspection 

program to include inspections that will 

give no less than the required damage 

tolerance rating (DTR) for certain SSIs, 

inspecting for cracks of all SSI structure, 

and repairing any cracked structure. 

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we have 

determined that reporting must be 

required in order to ensure the 

continuing structural airworthiness of 

The Boeing Company Model 747–100, 

747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 

747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747– 

400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 

747SP series airplanes with a high 

number of flight cycles. All cracks 

involving an SSI or related structure in 

close vicinity to the SSI must be 

reported to Boeing in order to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the supplemental 

structural inspections. We have revised 

paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to 

include reporting as part of the 

inspection program. 

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 

United Airlines stated that it concurs 

with the NPRM and has no further 

comments. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
52016 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Requests To Revise Certain Compliance 

Times 

Boeing and United Parcel Service 

(UPS) requested that we include a 

compliance time of ‘‘1,000 flight cycles 

measured from 12 months after the 

effective date of the AD’’ instead of a 

compliance time of ‘‘within 1,000 flight 

cycles or 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later’’ 

as specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(ii), 

(i)(2)(ii), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(2)(ii) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM). Boeing 

stated that it is not realistic to 

incorporate the proposed inspections 

within 12 months, as specified in 

paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM), while simultaneously 

performing inspections as specified in 

paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed 

AD (in the NPRM). Boeing noted that 

the related AD, AD 2004–07–22 R1, 

Amendment 39–15326 (73 FR 1052, 

January 7, 2008; corrected February 14, 

2008 (73 FR 8589)) (‘‘AD 2004–07–22 

R1’’), increases the compliance time up 

to 1,000 flight cycles, after allowing 12 

months to implement the new program. 

UPS stated that the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) should include a 1,000-flightcycle grace period similar to that 

provided in paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and 

(i)(2)(ii) of AD 2004–07–22 R1. UPS 

stated that the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) creates a situation for airplanes 

that are already over a threshold to have 

inspections due almost immediately 

upon the revision of the maintenance or 

inspection program. 

In addition, KLM Royal Dutch 

Airlines requested that we provide a 

grace period for SSI items for which the 

inspection interval has to be lowered 

due to a flight-hour/flight-cycle ratio of 

7.0 or more. British Airways stated that 

a suitable grace period should be 

introduced given that certain inspection 

intervals could be reduced from 6 years 

to 2 years. 

We agree with the requests to revise 

the compliance time. The revised 

compliance time proposed by Boeing 

and UPS is consistent with the 

compliance time in AD 2004–07–22 R1, 

and will not adversely affect safety. This 

revised compliance time provides an 

adequate grace period for reduced 

intervals. We have revised paragraphs 

(i)(1)(ii), (i)(2)(ii), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(2)(ii) 

of this proposed AD accordingly. 

Requests To Clarify Compliance Times 

for Components 

Boeing and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 

requested that we clarify the compliance 

times for removable structural 

components. The commenters noted 

that for inspections of removable 

structural components, the accumulated 

flight cycles and flight hours on the 

component should be used instead of 

flight cycles and flight hours on the 

airframe. Boeing noted that some SSI 

details are replaced, such as when 

installing removable structural 

components or installing used structural 

parts in a repair. The commenters 

recommended we add a note to 

paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed 

AD (in the NPRM) to address this issue. 

We agree because an SSI can be 

removed from the airframe and 

replaced, and have different flight 

cycles and flight hours than the 

airframe. Boeing Document D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013; and 

Boeing Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747– 

400 LCF Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document—Appendix A,’’ 

dated November 2015; state the 

following: 

The initial inspection (threshold) and 

intervals are measured in flight cycles or 

flight hours that a particular SSI detail has 

accumulated regardless of what the airframe 

as a whole has accumulated. Most SSI details 

have never been replaced and therefore have 

accumulated the same flight cycles and flight 

hours as the airframe. Some SSI details are 

replaced, such as when installing removable 

structural components (repairable/rotable/ 

expendables) or installing used structural 

parts as a repair. In these cases the SSI details 

have accumulated flight cycles and flight 

hours that may be different than the airframe. 

The operator must account for this in 

determining when inspections must be done. 

We have added new content to 

paragraph (l) to this proposed AD 

(replacing the content in paragraph (l) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) to state 

that for compliance times that specify 

total flight cycles and total flight hours, 

and the SSI is a removable structural 

component, those compliance times 

must be measured on the SSI since its 

installation, regardless of what the 

airframe as a whole has accumulated. If 

the total flight cycles and total flight 

hours on the SSI are not available or 

cannot be determined, the airframe total 

flight cycles and total flight hours are to 

be used for the compliance times 

identified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of 

this proposed AD. We have also added 

a reference to ‘‘paragraph (l) of this AD’’ 

to paragraphs (i) and (j) of this proposed 

AD. 

Request To Add Explanation To 

Continue Inspections 

Boeing requested that we add an 

explanation to the NPRM regarding the 

continuation of the inspections in AD 

2004–07–22 R1 until the start of the new 

inspections specified in the NPRM. 

Boeing recommended that we add the 

following text to the ‘‘Proposed AD 

Requirements’’ section in the preamble 

of the NPRM: 

Note it is required to start and continue 

inspections per D6–35022 Rev G, as required 

by AD 2004–07–22 R1; until inspections per 

D6–35022 Rev H, dated Sept. 2013, and if 

required also D6–35022–1 Appendix A, 

dated Nov. 2015, are accomplished as 

required by the new AD. 

We agree with the statement that 

Boeing provided. Inspections required 

by AD 2004–07–22 R1 are terminated 

only after accomplishment of the 

corresponding inspections required by 

this AD, as specified in paragraphs (i) 

and (j) of this proposed AD. However, 

the ‘‘Proposed AD Requirements’’ 

section is not restated in this proposed 

AD. Therefore, we have not changed 

this proposed AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Affected Airplanes 

in Paragraph (i) of the Proposed AD (in 

the NPRM) 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

header and first sentence of paragraph 

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

clarify the affected airplanes. Boeing 

stated that the text ‘‘all Model 747 

airplanes’’ should be revised so that the 

paragraph excludes Model 747–8 and 

747–8F airplanes. Boeing noted those 

models are not included in the 

applicability specified in paragraph (c) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). 

We agree to clarify the language for 

the affected airplanes for paragraph (i) 

of this proposed AD. When we use the 

term ‘‘all airplanes’’ in the regulatory 

text of an AD, we mean all airplanes 

identified in paragraph (c) of the AD. 

Model 747–8 and 747–8F airplanes are 

not identified in paragraph (c) of this 

proposed AD. We have revised the 

header and first sentence of paragraph 

(i) of this proposed AD by specifying 

‘‘all airplanes except . . .’’ instead of 

‘‘all Model 747 airplanes except . . . .’’ 

Request To Clarify Alternative Methods 

of Compliance (AMOCs) for AD 2004– 

07–22 R1 

Boeing requested that we revise 

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

the NPRM) to clarify that AMOCs are no 

longer needed for AD 2004–07–22 R1 

after the requirements of the proposed 

AD (in the NPRM) are implemented. 

Boeing stated that both ADs should not 

be required to be reported on FAA Form 

8100–9. 

We agree to clarify the AMOC 

requirements, but we do not agree to 

revise paragraph (p)(3) of this proposed 

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

AD (in the NPRM)). Paragraphs (i) and 

(j) of this proposed AD state that doing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules 52017 

the actions in paragraph (i) or (j) of this 

proposed AD terminates the 

corresponding action required by AD 

2004–07–22 R1. Thus, an AMOC for AD 

2004–07–22 R1 is no longer needed for 

a given SSI once the inspection for that 

SSI is done as required by this proposed 

AD. We have not changed this proposed 

AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Approval of 

Previous AMOCs 

Qantas Airways requested that we 

clarify paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed 

AD (in the NPRM), which approves 

previous AMOCs for the actions 

specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM), except 

for any SSI that has an expanded 

inspection area identified in Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for 

Model 747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, 

dated September 2013; or Boeing 

Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 LCF 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated 

November 2015. Qantas Airways 

requested that previous AMOCs also be 

approved for the actions required by 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM), which specifies repairing any 

cracked structure. 

We agree and have added a reference 

to paragraph (k) in paragraph (p)(4) of 

this proposed AD (paragraph (m)(4) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM)). 

Request for Relief From Certain 

Requirements 

UPS requested that we revise 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) to match the wording in 

paragraph (j) of AD 2004–07–22 R1 in 

order to avoid an unnecessary burden 

for Boeing, operators, and the FAA. UPS 

stated that paragraph (k) of the proposed 

AD (in the NPRM) specifies repairs to be 

done in accordance with AMOCapproved methods. UPS noted that 

previous repairs have been approved as 

AMOCs to paragraph (j) of AD 2004–07– 

22 R1, which corresponds to paragraph 

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

UPS further stated that paragraph (m)(4) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) states 

that AMOCs approved for AD 2004–07– 

22 R1 are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of paragraphs 

(h), (i), and (j) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM). UPS noted that paragraph (j) 

of AD 2004–07–22 R1 requires repairs to 

be done in accordance with FAAapproved methods. UPS concluded that 

a requirement to have all repairs be 

AMOC-approved creates an unnecessary 

burden. 

We agree to revise paragraph (k) of 

this proposed AD. Paragraph (j) of AD 

2004–07–22 R1 allows repairs to be 

performed using an FAA-approved 

method. This is because the original 

intent of the supplemental structural 

inspection document (SSID) program 

was to perform damage-tolerant-type 

inspections of SSIs that had no 

significant prior fatigue crack history on 

pre-14 CFR 25.571 amendment 45 

airplanes. In accordance with the SSID 

program, when cracking was found, 

Boeing would remove the SSI from the 

SSID, produce a separate service 

bulletin to address the cracking, and the 

FAA would then mandate the 

inspections specified in that service 

bulletin. These repairs would then need 

an AMOC to the corresponding AD 

when inspections were due. Since AD 

2004–07–22 R1 was issued, the FAA 

and Boeing have determined that in 

many cases it is not necessary to create 

a separate service bulletin and AD, 

provided the cracks are found in an SSI 

and the existing inspections in the SSID 

are sufficient to maintain airworthiness 

and detect cracks in a timely manner. 

This is similar to how airworthiness 

limitations programs are managed on 

post-14 CFR 25.571 amendment 45 

airplanes. We have revised paragraph 

(k) of this proposed AD to state that 

repairs are to be performed using an 

FAA-approved method. 

We also acknowledge that AMOCs to 

AD 2004–07–22 R1 have been issued, 

but these were issued to paragraph (l)(3) 

of that AD, rather than to paragraph (j) 

of that AD as discussed by UPS. These 

AMOCs were issued because operators 

could not inspect the SSI in accordance 

with the SSID and required alternate 

inspections or inspection intervals. We 

have determined that the guidance on 

when AMOCs are needed relative to the 

SSID program is not clear. Therefore, we 

have discussed this in the ‘‘Proposed 

Requirements of this SNPRM’’ section 

in this document and added new 

content to paragraph (m) to this 

proposed AD to clarify when operators 

must request an AMOC. 

Request for Approval of Alternative 

Determination of Utilization 

British Airways and UPS requested 

that we approve an alternative 

determination of airplane utilization 

(i.e., an airplane’s average flight hours/ 

flight cycles). The commenters stated 

that section 5.1.3. of Boeing Document 

D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013, specifies that the 

utilization is an average of flight hours 

per flight for each airplane and that the 

utilization should be determined since 

the last D-check. British Airways 

recommended that utilization be 

considered from the delivery of the 

airplane. British Airways stated the 

proposed change is a more realistic 

average over the life of the airplane, 

makes it easier for operators to 

determine future utilization, and 

reduces the possibility of missing 

inspections due to minor changes in 

utilization between D-checks. 

UPS recommended that an option be 

included to allow operators to use 

projected utilizations. UPS stated that 

the following terminology in Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for 

Model 747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, 

dated September 2013, can be 

contradictory and cannot be complied 

with: ‘‘for determining utilization, use 

flight hours and cycles accumulated 

since the last D check or its equivalent. 

If future utilization is known, use the 

new average flight hours.’’ UPS stated 

that the option would allow the operator 

to determine utilization from its 

maintenance program. 

We disagree that future airplane 

utilization (unless known through 

scheduled maintenance) or airplane 

utilization based on the delivery date of 

the airplane is acceptable. The 

terminology used in Boeing Document 

D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013, is: 

After implementing the FLS [Flight Length 

Sensitive] inspections and to account for 

utilization changes over time, it is 

recommended the operator re-assess the 

airplane’s utilization at least every D check 

or its equivalent. As a result of a reassessment, SSIs which require inspection 

more frequently should be inspected within 

the new interval since the last inspection or 

at the next C check, whichever is later. 

Future airplane utilization or airplane 

utilization from the delivery date would 

not, in general, be conservative in 

assessing the aircraft structure and is 

not equivalent. We have not changed 

this proposed AD in this regard. 

We also disagree that the terminology 

that UPS cited in Boeing Document D6– 

35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013, is contradictory. If the 

utilization that is used to set up the 

maintenance program changes over 

time, then the maintenance program 

schedule should be updated based on 

the new utilization. For example, if the 

average flight hours increase over the 

assessment period, then that operator 

should revise its maintenance program 

in consideration of the new average 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
52018 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

flight hours. We have not changed this 

proposed AD in this regard. 

Requests To Allow a Tolerance for 

Selecting Forms 

UPS and British Airways requested 

that we provide a tolerance for selecting 

the appropriate DTR forms. UPS 

recommended a tolerance of +/¥0.1 

hour be allowed for selecting DTR 

forms. UPS stated that the historic 

utilization of its fleet is slightly less 

than 7 flight hours per flight cycle since 

delivery of the airplane and over the 

most recent D-check interval. UPS 

stated that current utilization 

projections show an average over 7 

flight hours per flight cycle. UPS 

concluded that since it would have no 

knowledge ahead of time which 

airplane will be under or over 7, a 

tolerance in selecting the appropriate 

DTR form would provide a significant 

benefit to incorporating the program 

change without affecting the level of 

safety. British Airways recommended a 

tolerance of +/¥0.2 hour for the 7-hour 

utilization threshold and +/¥0.25 hour 

for 9- or 11-hour utilization thresholds. 

British Airways noted that if the 

utilization increases during the next 

interval, then the interval is 

significantly reduced, causing difficulty 

in providing the correct maintenance. 

The commenters noted that no tolerance 

is provided in Boeing Document D6– 

35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013. 

We do not find it necessary to include 

the requested tolerance in this AD, 

because section 5.1.3 of Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for 

Model 747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, 

dated September 2013, states, ‘‘DTR 

values can be read to the nearest two 

significant figures (0.1),’’ and section 7.3 

of that document provides the following 

example on how to determine what the 

average flight hours per flight cycle 

without the use of additional tolerances: 

For Wing SSIs, the initial step is to check 

to see if the SSI if Flight Length Sensitive 

(FLS). If so, the operator uses the average 

flight length to select the DTR Check Form 

that the airplane’s average flight length fits 

under. For example, at the SSID threshold, 

the airplane’s average flight length is 8.6 

hours. For this SSID item, there may be forms 

for <7 hours and >7 hours. In this case, the 

operator is to use the >7 hour DTR check 

form. 

Therefore, an operator will be able to 

determine if its average flight hours are 

either <7 hours or ≥7 hours without 

needing the aid of an additional 

tolerance. We have not changed this 

proposed AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify if a Reassessment Is 

Required 

UPS requested that we clarify whether 

a reassessment of utilization is required. 

UPS stated that Boeing Document D6– 

35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013, states, ‘‘it is 

recommended the operator re-assess the 

airplane’s utilization at least every D 

check or equivalent,’’ but it is not clear 

if this recommendation is a requirement 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) or an 

option. 

We agree to clarify. Boeing Document 

D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013, is for an exploratory 

program. When that document calls out 

recommendations on re-assessing the 

airplane’s utilization, this should be 

done at the operator’s own discretion. 

The reassessment is not a requirement 

of this proposed AD. We have not 

changed this proposed AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Provide Guidelines for 

Adjusting Certain Intervals 

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) 

requested that we provide guidance for 

adjusting certain intervals. KLM stated 

that no information is given on how to 

adjust repeat flight length sensitive 

(FLS) tasks for airplanes with a flighthour/flight-cycle ratio of 7.0 or more 

once the initial inspection is performed. 

KLM stated that chapter 5.0 of Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for 

Model 747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, 

dated September 2013, does not give 

clear guidelines. KLM stated that FLS 

tasks in Boeing Document D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013, will 

result in a significant decrease of the 

repetitive interval of complex 

inspections for a flight-hour/flight-cycle 

ratio of 7.0 or more. 

In reviewing Boeing Document D6– 

35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013, we have determined 

that it adequately addresses adjustment 

of the repetitive FLS tasks in sections 

5.1.3 and 7.3. In addition, under the 

provisions of paragraph (p) of this AD, 

we will consider requests for alternate 

approaches to compliance time changes 

if sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the approach and 

compliance time changes would provide 

an acceptable level of safety. We have 

not changed this proposed AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Fix Typographical Error 

Boeing and KLM requested that we 

revise a typographical error in 

paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM), which refers to paragraph 

(i)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM). The commenters stated that the 

correct reference is paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of 

the proposed AD (in the NPRM). 

We agree with the request. We have 

revised paragraph (j)(2) of this proposed 

AD accordingly. 

Removal of Inspection Program for 

Transferred Airplanes 

We have determined that the 

requirements specified in paragraph (l) 

of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) are 

not necessary. The inspection program 

for transferred airplanes was included 

in early SSID programs that involved a 

‘‘candidate fleet’’ (a specific group of 

airplanes that was inspected instead of 

all airplanes). Therefore, we have 

removed those requirements from this 

proposed AD. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Document D6– 

35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document for Model 747 

Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated 

September 2013. This service 

information describes procedures for 

inspections to detect cracks of all 

structure identified as SSIs, and 

includes six new SSIs since the last 

revision. 

We also reviewed Boeing Document 

D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 LCF 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated 

November 2015. This service 

information describes procedures for 

inspections of the wings, fuselage, and 

empennage SSIs for Model 747–400 LCF 

airplanes. 

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. 

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 these 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules 52019 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM 

This SNPRM would require revising 

the maintenance or inspection program 

to include inspections that will give no 

less than the required damage tolerance 

rating (DTR) for certain SSIs, inspecting 

for cracks of all SSI structure, and 

repairing any cracked structure. This 

proposed AD also would require 

reporting all cracks involving an SSI or 

related structure in close vicinity to the 

SSI to Boeing. 

This SNPRM would require revisions 

to certain operator maintenance 

documents to include new inspections. 

Compliance with these inspections is 

required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For 

airplanes that have been previously 

modified, altered, or repaired in the 

areas addressed by these inspections, 

the operator may not be able to 

accomplish the actions described in the 

revisions. In this situation, to comply 

with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator 

must request approval for an alternative 

method of compliance according to 

paragraph (p) of this proposed AD. The 

request should include a description of 

changes to the required inspections that 

will ensure the continued damage 

tolerance of the affected airplane. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 118 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 

Revision of maintenance or inspection program.1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ................. $0 $85 $10,030 

We have not specified cost estimates 

for the inspection and repair specified 

in this proposed AD. Compliance with 

this proposed AD constitutes a method 

of compliance with the FAA aging 

airplane safety final rule (AASFR) (70 

FR 5518, February 2, 2005) for certain 

baseline structure of Model 747–100, 

747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 

747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747– 

400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 

747SP series airplanes. The AASFR 

requires certain operators to incorporate 

damage tolerance inspections into their 

maintenance inspection programs. 

These requirements are described in 14 

CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 14 CFR 

129.109(b)(1). Accomplishment of the 

actions specified in this proposed AD 

will meet the requirements of these 

regulations for certain baseline 

structure. The costs for accomplishing 

the inspection portion of this proposed 

AD were accounted for in the regulatory 

evaluation of the AASFR for airplanes 

affected by that rule. For airplanes not 

affected by the AASFR, we have 

received no definitive data that would 

enable us to provide cost estimates for 

the inspection portion of this proposed 

AD. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary reporting that would be 

required based on the results of the 

proposed inspections in the 

maintenance inspection program. We 

have no way of determining the number 

of aircraft that might need this action: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Reporting ....................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ....................... $0 $85 per inspection cycle. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a current valid 

OMB control number. The control 

number for the collection of information 

required by this proposed AD is 2120– 

0056. The paperwork cost associated 

with this proposed AD has been 

detailed in the Costs of Compliance 

section of this document and includes 

time for reviewing instructions, as well 

as completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. Therefore, all 

reporting associated with this proposed 

AD is mandatory. Comments concerning 

the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden 

should be directed to the FAA at 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20591, ATTN: Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

This proposed AD is issued in 

accordance with authority delegated by 

the Executive Director, Aircraft 

Certification Service, as authorized by 

FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance 

with that order, issuance of ADs is 

normally a function of the Compliance 

and Airworthiness Division, but during 

this transition period, the Executive 

Director has delegated the authority to 

issue ADs applicable to transport 

category airplanes to the Director of the 

System Oversight Division. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
52020 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2016–9067; Product Identifier 2016– 

NM–043–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 

26, 2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD affects AD 2004–07–22 R1, 

Amendment 39–15326 (73 FR 1052, January 

7, 2008; corrected February 14, 2008 (73 FR 

8589)) (‘‘AD 2004–07–22 R1’’). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747– 

100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 

747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 

747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: A 

Model 747–400 LCF airplane is a Model 747– 

400 series airplane that has been modified 

from a passenger airplane to a freighter 

configuration, as specified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–00–2084. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/ 

Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of 

incidents involving fatigue cracking in 

transport category airplanes that are 

approaching or have exceeded their design 

service objective, and a structural 

reevaluation by the manufacturer that 

identified additional structural elements that 

qualify as structural significant items (SSIs). 

We are issuing this AD to ensure the 

continued structural integrity of all The 

Boeing Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 

747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747– 

200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747– 

400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Definition of SSI 

For the purposes of this AD, an SSI is 

defined as a principal structural element 

(PSE). A PSE is a structural element that 

contributes significantly to the carrying of 

flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and 

whose integrity is essential in maintaining 

the overall structural integrity of the airplane. 

(h) Maintenance or Inspection Program 

Revision for All Airplanes 

Prior to reaching the compliance times 

specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(2)(i), 

(j)(1)(i), or (j)(2)(i) of this AD, as applicable, 

or within 12 months after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs later: 

Incorporate a revision into the maintenance 

or inspection program, as applicable, that 

provides no less than the required damage 

tolerance rating (DTR) for each SSI listed in 

the applicable service information specified 

in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. The 

revision to the maintenance or inspection 

program must include, and must be 

implemented in accordance with, the 

procedures in Section 5.0, ‘‘Damage 

Tolerance Rating (DTR) System Application,’’ 

and Section 6.0, ‘‘SSI Discrepancy 

Reporting’’ of Boeing Document D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013; and 

Boeing Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 

LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015; as applicable. Accomplishing the 

revision required by this paragraph 

terminates the actions required by paragraphs 

(f), (g), and (h) of AD 2004–07–22 R1. 

(1) For all airplanes except Model 747–400 

LCF airplanes: SSIs listed in Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for Model 

747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated September 

2013. 

(2) For Model 747–400 LCF airplanes: SSIs 

listed in Boeing Document D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013; and SSIs 

listed in Boeing Document D6–35022–1, 

‘‘747–400 LCF Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document—Appendix A,’’ dated 

November 2015. For SSIs listed in both 

Boeing Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 

LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015; and Boeing Document D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013: 

Incorporate the SSIs listed in Boeing 

Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 LCF 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015. 

(i) Inspections for All Airplanes Except 

Model 747–400 LCF Airplanes 

For all airplanes except Model 747–400 

LCF airplanes: Perform inspections to detect 

cracks of all structure identified in Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for Model 

747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated September 

2013, at the times specified in paragraph 

(i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, 

except as required by paragraph (l) of this 

AD. Once the initial inspection has been 

performed, in order to remain in compliance 

with the maintenance or inspection program, 

as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, 

repetitive inspections are required at the 

intervals specified in Boeing Document D6– 

35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013. Doing an 

inspection required by this paragraph 

terminates the corresponding inspection 

required by paragraph (i) of AD 2004–07–22 

R1. 

(1) For wing structure, except as provided 

by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: Inspect at the 

times specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or 

(i)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(i) Within the applicable compliance time 

specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A) or 

(i)(1)(i)(B) of this AD. 

(A) For all Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747– 

100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 

747–300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes: 

Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total 

flight cycles or 100,000 total flight hours, 

whichever occurs first. 

(B) For all Model 747–400, 747–400D, and 

747–400F series airplanes: Prior to the 

accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 

115,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs 

first. 

(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured 

from 12 months after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(2) For all structure other than wing 

structure, except as provided by paragraph 

(i)(3) of this AD: At the time specified in 

paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured 

from 12 months after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(3) For any portion of an SSI that has been 

replaced with new structure: Inspect at the 

later of the times specified in paragraphs 

(i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules 52021 

(i) At the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) 

or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

(ii) Within 10,000 flight cycles after the 

replacement of the part with a new part. 

(j) Inspections for Model 747–400 LCF 

Airplanes 

For Model 747–400 LCF airplanes: Perform 

inspections to detect cracks of all structure 

identified in Boeing Document D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013; and 

Boeing Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 

LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015; at the times specified in paragraph 

(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, except 

as required by paragraph (l) of this AD. Once 

the initial inspection has been performed, in 

order to remain in compliance with the 

maintenance or inspection program, as 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD, 

repetitive inspections are required at the 

intervals specified in Boeing Document D6– 

35022, ‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013; and 

Boeing Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 

LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015. For SSIs listed in both Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for Model 

747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated September 

2013; and Boeing Document D6–35022–1, 

‘‘747–400 LCF Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document—Appendix A,’’ dated 

November 2015; the SSIs listed in Boeing 

Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 LCF 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015, take precedence (i.e., the SSIs in the 

latter document prevail). Doing an inspection 

required by this paragraph terminates the 

corresponding inspection required by 

paragraph (i) of AD 2004–07–22 R1. 

(1) For wing structure: Inspect at the times 

specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of 

this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total 

flight cycles or 115,000 total flight hours, 

whichever occurs first. 

(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured 

from 12 months after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(2) For all structure other than wing 

structure: At the time specified in paragraph 

(j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

(i) At the earlier of the times specified in 

paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) and (j)(2)(i)(B) of this 

AD. 

(A) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 

total flight cycles. 

(B) Within the applicable initial 

compliance time specified in Boeing 

Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for Model 

747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated September 

2013; and Boeing Document D6–35022–1, 

‘‘747–400 LCF Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document—Appendix A,’’ dated 

November 2015. For SSIs are listed in both 

Boeing Document D6–35022, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document for Model 

747 Airplanes,’’ Revision H, dated September 

2013; and Boeing Document D6–35022–1, 

‘‘747–400 LCF Supplemental Structural 

Inspection Document—Appendix A,’’ dated 

November 2015; the SSIs listed in Boeing 

Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 LCF 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015, take precedence (i.e., the SSIs in the 

latter document prevail). 

(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured 

from 12 months after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(k) Repair 

If any cracked structure is found during 

any inspection required by paragraph (i) or 

(j) of this AD, repair before further flight 

using an FAA-approved method. 

(l) Compliance Time Clarification 

For compliance times identified in 

paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD that specify 

total flight cycles and total flight hours, and 

the SSI is a removable structural component, 

those compliance times must be measured on 

the SSI since its first installation on any 

airplane, regardless of what the airframe as 

a whole has accumulated. If the total flight 

cycles and total flight hours on the SSI are 

not available or cannot be determined, use 

the airframe total flight cycles and total flight 

hours for the compliance times identified in 

paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. 

(m) No Alternative Inspections and 

Inspection Intervals 

After accomplishing the revision required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative 

inspections or inspection intervals may be 

used unless the alternative inspection or 

inspection interval is approved as an 

alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (p) of this AD. 

(n) Terminating Action for AD 2004–07–22 

R1 

Accomplishing the revision required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD and all of the initial 

inspections required by paragraph (i) or (j) of 

this AD, as applicable, terminates all 

requirements of AD 2004–07–22 R1. 

(o) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden 

Statement 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 

a penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act unless that collection of information 

displays a current valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number for this 

information collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of information is 

estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per 

response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. All responses to 

this collection of information are mandatory. 

Comments concerning the accuracy of this 

burden and suggestions for reducing the 

burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

(p) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

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 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (q)(1) of 

this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa. 

(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, Seattle ACO 

Branch, 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 2004–07–22 

R1 are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h), 

(i), (j), and (k) of this AD for the SSIs 

identified in the AMOC, except for any SSI 

that has an expanded inspection area 

identified in Boeing Document D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ 

Revision H, dated September 2013; or Boeing 

Document D6–35022–1, ‘‘747–400 LCF 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document—Appendix A,’’ dated November 

2015, as applicable. 

(q) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6432; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: bill.ashforth@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 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 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 

September 25, 2017. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21223 Filed 11–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS