Document ID: FAA-2012-1320-0009
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes
Posted Date: 2013-10-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61164-61168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1320; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-095-AD; 
Amendment 39-17618; AD 2013-20-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 
The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports 
of cracks and heat damage on pivot joint components found during main 
landing gear (MLG) overhaul. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, 
repetitive inspections of the MLG pivots, truck beam bushings, and 
inner cylinder bushings. For all airplanes, this AD requires a 
maintenance program revision, one-time inspections of the MLG truck 
beam, and related investigative and corrective actions (including 
configuration changes) if necessary; accomplishment of these actions 
terminates the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect 
and correct heat damage and cracks in the pivot pin, truck beam lugs, 
and inner cylinder lugs, which could result in fracture of the pivot 
joint components and consequent MLG collapse.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 7, 
2013.

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 review copies of the referenced service 
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 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; 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 Document 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 
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 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 include an AD that would apply to the specified products. 
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2013 (78 FR 
6251). For certain airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require repetitive 
inspections of the MLG pivots, truck beam bushings, and inner cylinder 
bushings. For all airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require a maintenance 
program revision, one-time inspections of the MLG truck beam, and 
related investigative and corrective actions (including configuration 
changes) if necessary; accomplishment of these actions would terminate 
the repetitive inspections.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
(78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013)

    American Airlines (American) noted no issue with this proposed AD 
(78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013), and reported that the proposed 
compliance time will allow the work to be done during normal gear 
overhaul.

Request To Clarify Applicability

    Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) stated that the installation of 
winglets per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http://
rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect 
the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Delta 
Airlines (Delta) noted that several previous ADs have included similar 
information about the APB winglet modification, and requested that we 
clarify the applicability of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) by 
including this provision.
    We agree. We have re-designated paragraph (c) as (c)(1) and added 
paragraph (c)(2) to this final rule, which states that STC ST01920SE 
(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect 
the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, 
for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a ``change in 
product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is 
not necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 39.17 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.17). For all other AMOC 
requests, the operator must request approval of an AMOC in accordance 
with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    UPS requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, 
January 30, 2013) to specify the repetitive interval for the 
lubrication schedule (as referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012). UPS stated that 
changing the current interval (14 days or 50 flight cycles) to 650 
flight hours would provide adequate lubrication and a simplified method 
of tracking compliance with the lubrication interval. UPS stated that 
the

[[Page 61165]]

lubrication could be scheduled along with the lubrication of other 
components located in that area, which is required by AD 2006-07-14, 
Amendment 39-14541 (71 FR 17691, April 7, 2006), for certain Model 767-
200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. UPS added that the NPRM's 
proposed compliance time of 14 days/50 flight cycles to lubricate the 
MLG truck pivot pin conflicts with the existing UPS maintenance 
program, 14 days/30 flight cycles, and does not add any increased 
benefit to safety.
    We disagree with the request, in light of the number of cracks that 
have been found in inner cylinder pivot bores due to friction-generated 
heat damage. More frequent lubrication reduces friction in the joint. 
Also, the Boeing 767-200/-300/-300F maintenance planning document was 
previously changed to specify 14 days/50 flight cycles for these 
actions. Under the provisions of paragraph (n) of this final rule, 
however, we may consider individual requests for adjustments to the 
compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an 
adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not 
changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Inspection Requirements

    Paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) specified 
``detailed and etch inspections'' for Model 767-400ER airplanes. Boeing 
requested that we limit this requirement to a ``detailed inspection.'' 
Boeing reported that the referenced service information for this 
proposed requirement erroneously specifies ``detailed and etch 
inspections'' in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012. 
Boeing explained that etch inspections do not apply to Model 767-400ER 
airplanes (Group 1) because those truck and inner cylinder pivot lugs 
are chrome plated. Boeing stated that affected operators will be 
notified of this error, which will be corrected when this service 
bulletin is revised. Boeing noted that the error appears only in 
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance''--and not the Work Instructions (Parts 6 
and 7)--of this service bulletin.
    We agree with the request for the reasons provided by the 
commenter. We have revised paragraph (h) in this final rule 
accordingly.

Request To Revise Inspection Condition: Wear

    Paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) specified 
inspections to detect, among other things, ``wear'' of the MLG pivot 
pins. Boeing asserted that, since wear is a normal occurrence, ``wear'' 
should be changed to ``wear beyond limits'' to correspond to this 
condition as described in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 
1, dated September 13, 2012.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Specific wear limits are 
defined in condition 4, table 5, of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of 
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 
2012. No change to this final rule is necessary.

Request To Revise Inspection Condition: Grease in Inner Diameters

    Paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) also 
specified inspections to detect ``grease not present in the bushing 
inner diameter.'' Boeing contended this step is unnecessary, since 
operators must clean the pivot joint before the inspection, so there 
would be no grease present on the bushing inner diameters. (Boeing 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012, 
specifies applying grease through the lube fittings as part of the 
inspection process to check for clogged lube passages.) Boeing 
therefore requested that we revise this condition to ``grease not 
appearing in the bushing inner diameters when applied through the lube 
fittings'' to more closely match the service bulletin description.
    We agree with the request, for the reasons provided by the 
commenter. We have changed paragraph (h) in this final rule 
accordingly.

Request To Revise Descriptive Heading

    The descriptive heading for paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, 
January 30, 2013) was ``MLG Truck Beam Inspections.'' Boeing requested 
that we change this heading to ``MLG Truck Beam and Inner Cylinder 
Configuration Change.'' Boeing contended that this change would 
emphasize the main purpose of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, 
Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012--to replace the aluminum-nickel-
bronze bushings with copper-nickel-tin bushings.
    We agree with the commenter's request and rationale. Boeing Service 
Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012, specifies 
this configuration change. We have revised the heading accordingly in 
this final rule.

Request To Clarify Inspection Locations

    Paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) specified 
inspections of the ``truck beam.'' Boeing requested that we revise this 
proposed requirement to add inspection of the ``inner cylinders.'' 
Boeing stated that the main purpose of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012, is to replace the truck 
beam and inner cylinder pivot-joint bushings, and asserted that the 
NPRM omitted the inner cylinder bushings and emphasized the inspection 
process rather than the configuration change.
    We agree with the request and have changed paragraph (i) 
accordingly in this final rule.

Request To Include Heat Damage as an Inspection Condition

    Paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) specified 
inspections to detect, among other things, ``distress, corrosion, and 
cracking.'' Boeing requested that we add ``heat damage'' to these 
conditions to more closely match the language of Boeing Service 
Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012. Boeing 
stated that heat damage, explicitly identified as a condition in this 
service bulletin, is the primary type of damage to be expected.
    We agree to clarify the possible findings of the inspection. Boeing 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012, 
specifies various conditions based on the airplane group, and heat 
damage is identified as one of those conditions. We have changed 
paragraph (i) in this final rule to clarify that the inspection is 
intended to detect ``applicable discrepancies'' specified in Boeing 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012.

Request To Allow Terminating Action per Service Information

    Paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) 
specified that overhaul of the MLG and installation of certain truck 
beam and inner cylinder bushings terminate the inspection requirements, 
if those actions are done using an FAA-approved alternative method of 
compliance (AMOC). Boeing stated that the MLG overhaul includes 
investigative and corrective actions that are equivalent to those found 
in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 
2012, so an overhaul should be an acceptable substitute for those 
actions. Boeing stated that most or all operators are expected to use 
the overhaul option, which is available in this service bulletin, so 
FAA approval of this service bulletin would make the process for 
requesting AMOC approval (as specified

[[Page 61166]]

in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM) unnecessary.
    We disagree with the request because the overhaul procedures 
necessary to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD would 
encompass significantly more work than the commenter described. 
Operators must contact the FAA to obtain approval for an acceptable 
method to ensure that the overhaul meets the requirement of this AD. We 
have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Include Part References

    Delta requested that we clarify the proposed actions specified in 
paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) by 
also identifying the applicable Parts of the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated 
September 13, 2012.
    We agree with the request. We have added references to ``Part 2'' 
in paragraph (h) of this final rule and ``Part 3'' in paragraph (i) of 
this final rule.

Request To Account for Related AD

    UPS requested that we revise paragraph (b) of the NPRM (78 FR 6251, 
January 30, 2013) to refer to AD 2006-07-14, Amendment 39-14541 (71 FR 
17691, April 7, 2006). UPS stated that the new copper-nickel-tin 
bushing material (identified in the NPRM and Boeing Service Bulletin 
767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012), replaces the 
aluminum-nickel-bronze bushing material specified in AD 2006-07-14. UPS 
asserted that compliance with both the NPRM and AD 2006-07-14 cannot be 
concurrently satisfied because the NPRM, which would require use of 
copper-nickel-tin material, conflicts with AD 2006-07-14, which 
requires use of aluminum-nickel-bronze bushing material. UPS stated 
that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 
13, 2012, explains that use of the new copper-nickel-tin bushing 
material is an AMOC to AD 2006-07-14, and requested that we revise the 
NPRM to include this AMOC.
    We find that clarification is necessary. Paragraph 1.F., 
``Approval,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated 
September 13, 2012, already addresses the issue raised by the 
commenter. Specifically, paragraph (j) of AD 2006-07-14, Amendment 39-
14541 (71 FR 17691, April 7, 2006), specifies installing aluminum-
nickel-bronze bushings as part of the terminating action. This final 
rule requires replacement of those aluminum-nickel-bronze bushings with 
bushings made of copper-nickel-tin material. Using a copper-nickel-tin 
bushing is considered to be an AMOC for installing an aluminum-nickel-
bronze bushing, when installed as part of the terminating action for 
paragraph (j) of AD 2006-07-14. As requested by the commenter, we 
changed paragraph (b) of this final rule to clarify that this AD 
affects AD 2006-07-14.

Requests To Correct Typographical Error

    Boeing and Delta noted a typographical error in paragraph (h) of 
the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013), which incorrectly specified 
inspecting ``pivots'' instead of ``pivot pins.''
    We acknowledge the error and have corrected paragraph (h) in this 
final rule accordingly.

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:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in 
the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013) for correcting the unsafe 
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 6251, January 30, 2013).
    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 420 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Number of
                                                                                     affected     Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost      Parts cost   Cost per product      U.S.         operators
                                                                                    airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision..  1 work-hour x $85           $0  $85..............          420  $35,700.
                                 per hour = $85.
Repetitive inspections........  59 work-hours x              0  $5,015 per                  38  $190,570 per
                                 $85 per hour =                  inspection cycle.               inspection
                                 $5,015 per                                                      cycle.
                                 inspection cycle.
One-time inspections..........  147 work-hours x             0  $12,495..........          420  $5,247,900.
                                 $85 per hour =
                                 $12,495.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 
cost estimates for the on-condition actions (including related 
investigative actions, configuration changes, and corrective actions) 
specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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.

[[Page 61167]]

    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 adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

2013-20-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17618 ; Docket No. FAA-
2012-1320; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-095-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 7, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    AD 2006-07-14, Amendment 39-14541 (71 FR 17691, April 7, 2006), 
is affected by this AD.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as 
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated 
September 13, 2012.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 
ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/
rgstc.nsf/0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) 
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by 
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is 
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance 
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the 
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks and heat damage found 
on pivot joint components found during main landing gear (MLG) 
overhaul. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct heat damage 
and cracks in the pivot pin, truck beam lugs, and inner cylinder 
lugs, which could result in fracture of the pivot joint components 
and consequent MLG collapse.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Program Revision

    At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, 
dated September 13, 2012, except as provided by paragraph (j) of 
this AD, revise the maintenance program to incorporate the specified 
maintenance review board (MRB) item, in accordance with Part 1 of 
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012.

(h) Repetitive Pivot Pin and Bushing Inspections

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Service Bulletin 
767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012: At the applicable 
times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service 
Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012, except 
as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, do a detailed inspection to 
detect discrepancies (including bronze transfer, heat discoloration, 
darkened streaks, thermal spray coating distress, wear, cracking, 
smearing of material into the lubrication grooves, or grease not 
appearing in the bushing inner diameters when applied through the 
lube fittings) of the MLG pivot pins, truck beam bushings, and inner 
cylinder bushings, and do all applicable corrective actions, in 
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012. 
Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat 
the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in 
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012.

(i) Inspections of MLG Truck Beam and Inner Cylinder Configuration 
Change

    For all airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, 
Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012, except as provided by 
paragraph (j) of this AD, inspect the MLG truck beam and inner 
cylinders, using a detailed inspection, etch inspection, and 
fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI), as applicable, to detect 
applicable discrepancies, and do all applicable related 
investigative and corrective actions (including configuration 
changes), in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, 
dated September 13, 2012. Do all applicable related investigative 
and corrective actions before further flight. Boeing Service 
Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated September 13, 2012, provides 
options for accomplishing certain corrective actions.

(j) Service Information Exception

    Where Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated 
September 13, 2012, specifies a compliance time ``after the original 
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance 
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of 
this AD.

(k) Terminating Action

    (1) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g) and 
(i) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this 
AD.
    (2) Overhaul of the MLG and installation of truck beam and inner 
cylinder bushings having applicable part numbers identified in 
Appendix ``B'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, 
dated September 13, 2012, terminate the requirements of paragraphs 
(h) and (i) of this AD, if the actions are done using a method 
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph 
(n) of this AD.

(l) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of 
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may 
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in 
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this 
AD.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in 
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD, if those actions were 
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, dated April 25, 2012, which is not 
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(n) 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 (o)(1) 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

[[Page 61168]]

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, 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.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 
98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
berhane.alazar@faa.gov.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not 
incorporated by reference in this AD may be obtained at the 
addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed 
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-32A0227, Revision 1, dated 
September 13, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated 
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 16, 2013.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23898 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P