Document ID: FAA-2012-0145-0013
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes
Posted Date: 2014-08-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44672-44677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17996]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0145; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-066-AD; 
Amendment 39-17899; AD 2014-14-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-18-10 for 
certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. AD 2003-18-10 required 
revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance 
planning data (MPD) document. This new AD also requires revising the 
maintenance program to incorporate an additional limitation, which 
terminates the existing requirements; and adds airplanes to the 
applicability. This AD was prompted by a re-evaluation of certain doors 
and flaps based on their fatigue-critical nature. We are issuing this 
AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the principal structural 
elements (PSEs), which could adversely affect the structural integrity 
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 5, 
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of October 
16, 2003 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.You may view this referenced service information 
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the 
FAA, call 425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
0145; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket 
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and 
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 
425-917-6590; email: berhane.alazar@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to supersede AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, 
September 11, 2003). AD 2003-18-10 applied to The Boeing Company Model 
767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 
22, 2012 (77 FR 10403). That NPRM proposed to continue to require 
revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the MPD document. 
That NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to 
incorporate an additional limitation, which terminates the existing 
requirements; and adding airplanes to the applicability.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
(77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) and the FAA's response to each 
comment.

Request To Reduce the Scope of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 
2012)

    ABX Air requested that we reduce the scope of the NPRM (77 FR 
10403, February 22, 2012).
    ABX Air stated that the ``SUMMARY'' and ``Actions Since Existing AD 
was Issued'' sections of the NPRM imply that it is a result of an 
unsafe condition relating to certain cargo doors and flaps. ABX Air 
stated that the NPRM would require incorporation of the July 2011 
revision of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document into the 
operator's maintenance program. ABX Air stated that requiring the 
complete revision is overreaching the AD's scope.
    We disagree with reducing the scope of this final rule. The NPRM 
(77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) stated that re-evaluation of certain 
doors and flaps prompted the new rulemaking. However, the re-evaluation 
was not limited to certain doors and flaps, but rather a complete 
review of the entire July 2011 revision of Subsection B, Airworthiness 
Limitations--Structural Limitations, of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD 
Document. The AD is intended to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 
the principal structural elements (PSEs) listed in the July 2011 
revision of Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural 
Limitations, of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD

[[Page 44673]]

Document, as stated in the preamble of the NPRM. We have not changed 
this final rule in this regard.

Request To Revise Note 1 to Paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 
February 22, 2012)

    Boeing requested that we revise the reference in Note 1 to 
paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) from FAA 
Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a) 
to FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument&Highlight=faa ac 120-93). 
Boeing stated that the FAA has revised AC 25.1529-1 at Revision A, 
dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a), 
to apply only to airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross weight; therefore, 
AC 25.1529-1A no longer applies to Model 767 airplanes.
    We agree that FAA AC 25.1529-1A (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a) 
does not apply to airplanes identified in this final rule, and have 
determined that Note 1 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 
February 22, 2012) is not needed. That note has been removed from this 
final rule.

Request To Remove Reference to Certain Document

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we remove the reference 
to Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of 
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011, of the 
Boeing 767 MPD Document from paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 
February 22, 2012). UPS stated that, if paragraph (g) of the NPRM is a 
restatement of the requirements of AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 
(68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), then the July 2011 revision is not 
required. UPS stated that, if the intent was to indicate those 
revisions previously approved by rule or Alternative Method of 
Compliance (AMOC) approval, then paragraph (g) of the NPRM should state 
that those revisions were previously approved instead of referring to 
specific revision dates.
    We disagree with the request to remove the reference. Including 
this reference in paragraph (g) of this final rule gives an option to 
the operator, and is not a requirement. No change has been made to this 
final rule in this regard.

Requests To Permit Use of Later Revisions of MPD

    Boeing and AA requested that we permit the use of later revisions 
of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, of the Boeing 767 MPD 
Document. Boeing stated that since the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 
2012) was published, new revisions of that document have been released.
    We agree to allow use of the most recent revision of the MPD 
(Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of 
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision February 2014, of 
the Boeing 767 MPD Document), and have added this reference in 
paragraph (i) of this final rule accordingly. Operators may also 
request approval to use prior revisions of the referenced MPD as an 
alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (l) 
of the final rule.

Requests To Provide Grace Period

    ABX Air, Japan Air Lines (JAL), and All Nippon Airways (ANA) 
requested that we add a grace period to paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 
FR 10403, February 22, 2012).
    ABX Air requested a 44-month grace period to allow operators to 
revise their maintenance program and do the initial inspection and 
repair without putting the fleet out of compliance. ABX Air stated that 
airplanes that have exceeded the existing 25,000-flight-cycle 
compliance time would be out of compliance when the AD is published. 
ABX believes that extending the compliance time to 44 months will 
provide an acceptable level of safety.
    JAL requested we add a 24-month grace period to paragraph (i) of 
the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012). JAL stated that it has 
airplanes that have exceeded the proposed compliance time.
    ANA requested that we change the compliance time for revising the 
maintenance program from 18 months to 45 months, or establish a grace 
period to coordinate with ANA's C-check maintenance schedule.
    American Airlines (AA) requested clarification of the compliance 
times to address airplanes that are beyond the thresholds of the new 
tasks specified in Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. AA stated 
that operators will have airplanes out of compliance with the 
maintenance program when Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document is 
incorporated.
    We find that clarification of the compliance time for the initial 
inspection is necessary. We have added a sentence to paragraph (i)(1) 
of this final rule to specify that the initial compliance times for the 
inspections are to be done at the applicable times specified in 
Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of 
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or 
Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document; or within 18 
months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.
    In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the 
safety implications, the time necessary to design an acceptable 
modification, and normal maintenance schedules for timely 
accomplishment of the modification. In light of these items, we have 
determined that the times specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness 
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness 
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 
D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 
767 MPD Document; or within 18 months after the effective date of this 
AD; for the initial inspection is appropriate. However, under the 
provisions of paragraph (l) of the final rule, we will consider 
requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if 
sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would 
provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Allow Alternate Method To Track Rotable Parts

    Boeing requested that we change paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 
10403, February 22, 2012) to allow Appendix 7 of FAA AC 120-93, dated 
November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument), or

[[Page 44674]]

another method approved by a principal maintenance inspector (PMI), as 
an alternative to the method for tracking rotable parts. Boeing stated 
that the current statement in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--
Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision 
July 2011, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document, is overly restrictive for 
the purpose of identifying fleet problems with an exploratory 
inspection program for removable structural components.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to change the method 
of compliance for tracking rotable parts. The Boeing MPD method is 
identical to, or less restrictive for fleet age than, the method 
described in FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument). This AC permits a 
``conservative'' implementation schedule to be established. However, a 
``conservative'' schedule is undefined and, therefore, unenforceable. 
As a result, the FAA guidance in the AC is inappropriate for inclusion 
in this final rule. No change has been made to this final rule in this 
regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of the final 
rule, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method 
for compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that 
the alternative method would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Require Maintenance Program Revision

    UPS requested that we revise the text of paragraph (g) of the NPRM 
(77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to require revising the maintenance 
program to incorporate the identified MPD documents. UPS stated that 
paragraph (g) of the NPRM requires operators to revise Subsection B of 
Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document and Appendix B of Boeing 767 
MPD Document. UPS noted that operators do not have control or revision 
authority over the Boeing 767 MPD documents.
    We agree with this request. We have revised paragraph (g) of this 
final rule to clarify how to revise the maintenance program.

Requests To Permit Use of Later Revisions of Service Information

    Boeing and JAL requested that we permit the use of future FAA-
approved revisions of the service information.
    We disagree. Using the phrase ``later-approved revisions'' violates 
the Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials 
that are incorporated by reference. According to the provisions of 
paragraph (l) of this final rule, operators may request approval of an 
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to use a later revision of the 
referenced MPD document as an alternative, if the request is submitted 
with substantiating data that demonstrate the later revision will 
provide an adequate level of safety. We have not changed this final 
rule in this regard.

Requests To Expand AMOC Section To Include Previous Approvals

    United Airlines (United), AA, and UPS requested that we expand the 
AMOC section of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to include 
previous approvals for AMOCs for AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 
FR 53503, September 11, 2003).
    We agree with the request. Repairs previously approved as AMOCs in 
accordance with AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, 
September 11, 2003), are acceptable for compliance with the 
corresponding actions required by this final rule. We have added a new 
paragraph (l)(4) to this final rule accordingly.

Requests To Expand AMOCs To Include Certain Repairs

    AA and Boeing requested that we expand the AMOC section to include 
repairs approved under section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) as acceptable methods of 
compliance. AA recommended that we approve as AMOCs to the NPRM (77 FR 
10403, February 22, 2012) all repairs approved by a Boeing-authorized 
representative on parts listed in Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD 
Document that were found to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.571 and 14 CFR 
26.43(d). Boeing recommended ``grandfathering'' existing repairs to new 
CMRs/structural significant items (SSI) provided adequate damage 
tolerance has been performed at repair approval.
    We agree with the commenter. We have added a new paragraph (l)(5) 
to this final rule to allow the following repairs done before the 
effective date of this AD as acceptable methods of compliance where the 
inspections of the baseline structure cannot be accomplished: Repairs 
that are approved under both section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) by the Boeing Commercial 
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been 
authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
to make those findings; provided that the repair specified an 
inspection program (inspection threshold, method, and repetitive 
interval); and that operators revised their maintenance or inspection 
program, as applicable, to include the inspection program for the 
repair.

Request for Clarification of Certain AMOC Section

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM (77 FR 
10403, February 22, 2012) to include inspecting as an alternative 
method to satisfy the damage tolerance requirements. (Paragraph (k)(3) 
of the NPRM corresponds to paragraph (l)(3) of this final rule.) Boeing 
stated that doing so would clarify that, in cases where an operator 
cannot perform an inspection ``per D622T001-9 Subsection B and 
D622T001-DTR in baseline configuration,'' an alternate inspection type 
that satisfies the damage tolerance requirements can be used with an 
appropriate AMOC approval.
    We disagree with adding the requested text to this final rule. 
Paragraph c. of Section 2-7 of Chapter 2, DER (designated engineering 
representative) Authority and Limitations, of FAA Order 8110.37E, DER 
Handbook, effective March 30, 2011 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/3679F39DB79BB62A8625786A0066C662?OpenDocument&Highlight=8110.37e), does 
permit an authorized DER or other authorized representative to approve 
an alternative inspection method, threshold, or interval, where a new 
repair or modification results in the inability to accomplish the 
existing AD-mandated inspection, or necessitates a change in the 
existing AD-mandated inspection threshold. This delegation is already 
provided in paragraph (l)(3) of this final rule. No change has been 
made to the final rule in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Compliance Time for the Reporting Requirements

    Delta Airlines (Delta) requested that we clarify the compliance 
time for the proposed reporting requirements. Delta stated that the 
instruction in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural 
Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Revision July 2011, or 
Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD

[[Page 44675]]

Document, specifies reporting within 10 days. Delta requested a change 
to state that reporting is required within 10 days after the airplane 
is returned to service, instead of 10 days after each individual 
finding.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have added new paragraph 
(i)(3) to this final rule to clarify that the compliance time for 
reporting is within 10 days after the airplane is returned to service, 
instead of 10 days after each individual finding. We have also added 
new paragraph (j) to this final rule to include the Paperwork Reduction 
Act Burden Statement, and re-designated subsequent paragraphs 
accordingly.

Other Changes to This Final Rule

    We have moved the information from Note 2 of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, 
February 22, 2012) into paragraph (i)(2) of this final rule.
    We have clarified the language in paragraph (k) of this AD and 
added a reference to paragraph (l) of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial 
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) for correcting the unsafe 
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the 
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 417 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise airworthiness limitations        1 work[dash]hour x $85                $0             $85         $35,445
 [retained action from AD 2003-18-10,    per hour = $85.
 Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503,
 September 11, 2003)].
Revise airworthiness limitations [new   1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          35,445
 requirement].                           hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of 
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control 
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in 
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for 
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with 
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden 
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA 
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 
2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), and 
adding the following new AD:

2014-14-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17899; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0145; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-066-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 5, 
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 
53503, September 11, 2003).

[[Page 44676]]

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, 
line numbers 1 through 997 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Code 51, Standard Practices/Structures; 52, Doors; 
53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelle/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 56, Windows; and 
57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a re-evaluation of certain doors and 
flaps based on their fatigue-critical nature. We are issuing this AD 
to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the principal structural 
elements (PSEs), which could adversely affect the structural 
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Retained Revision of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance 
Planning Data (MPD) Document

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD 
2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), 
with clarification for revising the maintenance program. For Model 
767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes having line 
numbers 1 through 895 inclusive: Within 18 months after October 16, 
2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-18-10), revise the maintenance 
program to incorporate Subsection B, Section 9, of Boeing 767 MPD 
Document D622T001, entitled ``Airworthiness Limitations and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements,'' Revision October 2002, and 
Appendix B of Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001, Revision December 
2002; or Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural 
Limitations, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision 
July 2011, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document.

(h) Retained Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals

    This paragraph restates the alternative inspection and 
inspection interval limitations specified by paragraph (d) of AD 
2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003). 
Except as provided by paragraphs (i) and (l) of this AD: After the 
actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been accomplished, 
no alternative inspections or inspection intervals shall be approved 
for the structural significant items (SSIs) contained in Section 9 
of Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001-9, Revision October 2002.

(i) New Maintenance Program Revision

    (1) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, revise 
the maintenance program to incorporate the Limitations section in 
Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of 
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or 
Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. Doing this 
maintenance program revision terminates the requirements of 
paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the 
inspections are at the applicable times specified in Subsection B, 
Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or Revision 
February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document; or within 18 months 
after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.
    (2) For the purposes of this AD, the terms PSEs as used in this 
AD, and SSIs as used in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--
Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations 
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-
9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 
MPD Document, are considered to be interchangeable.
    (3) Reports specified in Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations 
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-
9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 
MPD Document, may be submitted within 10 days after the airplane is 
returned to service, instead of 10 days after each individual 
finding, as specified in Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, 
Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.

(j) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to 
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control 
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is 
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the 
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. All responses to this collection of 
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this 
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to 
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(k) Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as 
required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., 
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or 
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) 
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this 
AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local 
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. 
Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization 
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), to make those findings. For a repair 
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis 
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this 
AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2003-18-10, 
Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), are approved 
as AMOCs for the corresponding actions specified in this AD.
    (5) Repairs done before the effective date of this AD that meet 
the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(5)(i), (l)(5)(ii), and 
(l)(5)(iii) of this AD are acceptable methods of compliance for the 
repaired area where the inspections of the baseline structure cannot 
be accomplished.
    (i) The repair was approved under both section 25.571 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) by the Boeing 
Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) 
that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), to make those findings.
    (ii) The repair approval provides an inspection program 
(inspection threshold, method, and repetitive interval).
    (iii) Operators revised their maintenance or inspection program, 
as applicable, to include the inspection program (inspection 
threshold, method, and repetitive interval) for the repair.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; 
phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
berhane.alazar@faa.gov.

[[Page 44677]]

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed 
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on 
September 5, 2014.
    (i) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision 
July 2011, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data Document.
    (ii) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision 
February 2014, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data Document.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on 
October 16, 2003 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003).
    (i) Appendix B of Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data Document 
D622T001, Revision December 2002.
    (ii) Subsection B, Section 9, of Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning 
Data Document D622T001-9, Revision October 2002.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated 
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 3, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17996 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P