Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes, 30009-30014 [E8-11591]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
You can find our regulatory
evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, 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 AD:
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2008–0585;
Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–027–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by July 7,
2008.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN:
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057–
3356; telephone (425) 917–6426; fax (425)
917–6590; has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
(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 an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8,
2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–11567 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model
747SP series airplanes.
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Compliance
(e) Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of
freeplay-induced vibration of the control
surfaces on Boeing Model 727, 737, 757, and
767 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
prevent damage to the control surface
structure during flight, which could result in
loss of control of the airplane.
RIN 2120–AA64
15:17 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25390; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–224–AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 767 Airplanes
Repetitive Lubrication and Replacement
(f) At the applicable compliance time listed
in Paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–27–
2447, dated January 17, 2008, lubricate the
rudder tab hinges and replace the rudder tab
control rods with new control rods. Repeat
the lubrication and replacement thereafter at
the applicable repeat interval listed in
paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service
bulletin. Do all actions in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–27–
2447, dated January 17, 2008. Where Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–27–
2447, dated January 17, 2008, specifies a
compliance time after the date on the service
bulletin, this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes.
The original NPRM would have
required repetitive inspections for
cracking of the wing skin, and related
investigative/corrective actions if
necessary. The original NPRM resulted
from reports of cracks found in the
lower wing skin originating at the
forward tension bolt holes of the aft
pitch load fitting. This action revises the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30009
original NPRM by revising certain
compliance times. We are proposing
this supplemental NPRM to detect and
correct cracking in the lower wing skin
for the forward tension bolt holes at the
aft pitch load fitting, which could result
in a fuel leak and reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by June 17,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://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 AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
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 proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055–4056; telephone
(425) 917–6421; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this supplemental NPRM.
Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include
the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2006–25390; Directorate Identifier
2005–NM–224–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
30010
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We
will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this
supplemental NPRM in light of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We proposed to amend 14 CFR part
39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for an AD (the ‘‘original
NPRM’’) for certain Boeing Model 767
airplanes. The original NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
July 19, 2006 (71 FR 40948). The
original NPRM proposed to require
repetitive inspections for cracking of the
wing skin, and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Actions Since Original NPRM Was
Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM,
Boeing has issued Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007. The procedures in Revision 1 are
essentially the same as those in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767–57A0097,
dated September 29, 2005, which we
referred to as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing
the actions proposed in the original
NPRM. However, Revision 1 clarifies
the compliance times to add a flighthour component. The flight-hour times
were inadvertently omitted from the
original release of the service bulletin.
Flight-hour compliance times take into
account those airplanes that have long
flights. We have revised this
supplemental NPRM to include the
clarified compliance times.
We have also added paragraph (n) to
the supplemental NPRM to give credit
for actions done before the effective date
of this AD in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767–57A0097,
dated September 29, 2005.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
Requests To Clarify Thresholds for
Internal Inspections of the Wing Skin in
Paragraph (g) of the Original NPRM
UPS and Japan Airlines (JAL) request
that we clarify the thresholds for the
internal inspections of the wing skin in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
paragraph (g) of the original NPRM. UPS
asks that the statement ‘‘prior to [as of]
the effective date of this AD’’ be
removed from paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of the original NPRM. UPS states
that the current phrases, ‘‘prior to the
effective date of this AD,’’ and ‘‘as of the
effective date of this AD’’ would require
operators of airplanes on which one of
the strut improvement program (SIP)
service bulletins (Boeing Service
Bulletins 767–54–0080, Revision 1,
dated May 9, 2002; 767–54–0081, dated
July 29, 1999, Revision 1, dated
February 7, 2002; and 767–54–0082,
dated October 28, 1999, Revision 1,
dated November 4, 2004, or Revision 3,
dated September 20, 2007) is
accomplished after the effective date of
the proposed AD to be inspected at
20,000 total aircraft cycles rather than
16,500 cycles from the accomplishment
of the SIP service bulletin. UPS
concludes that this is not the intent of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097. Furthermore, UPS does not
see any relevant reason for use of this
statement in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of
the original NPRM. JAL states that doing
the SIP service bulletins is equivalent to
performing the bolt open hole
inspection in Part 2 of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097.
We agree with the commenters that
the wording in the original NPRM does
not give credit for work done in
accordance with the SIP service
bulletins after the effective date of the
proposed AD. We have revised
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this
supplemental NPRM to clarify this
point.
Request To Change Inspection
Threshold in Paragraph (h) of the
Original NPRM
UPS requests that we change the
inspection threshold in paragraph (h) of
the original NPRM so that it is based on
the preceding open-hole high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspection method
used. In that case, the threshold for the
paragraph (h) inspections would be
16,500 flight cycles, rather than 3,000
flight cycles, from the last
accomplishment of paragraph (g) of the
NPRM. UPS agrees with the repetitive
interval of 3,000 flight cycles as
currently stated in paragraph (h) of the
original NPRM.
We do not agree with the commenter
that the threshold should be based on
the preceding open-hole HFEC
inspection method. The external
inspection specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision
1, dated October 18, 2007, will miss
cracks that are hidden by the fitting
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
until the crack grows beyond the fitting.
In particular, the Part 1 inspection will
not detect large cracks growing aft that
are hidden by the fitting. Also, there is
a preload in the skin due to ‘‘clamp-up
stress’’ from the bolts. These clamp-up
stresses add to uncertainty in the
analysis. The 3,000-flight-cycle
threshold will allow for additional
opportunities to detect possible cracks
once they grow beyond the fitting. In
addition, this rationale is the intent of
the manufacturer, and this intent has
been clarified in Revision 1 of the
service bulletin. We have not changed
this supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Clarify the Airplane
Effectivity in Paragraph (h) of the
Original NPRM
UPS requests that we revise the
following statement from paragraph (h)
of the original NPRM: ‘‘For all airplanes,
regardless of whether Boeing Service
Bulletins 767–54–0080, Revision 1,
dated May 9, 2002; 767–54–0081, dated
July 29, 1999; or 767–54–0082, dated
October 28, 1999, have been
accomplished * * *’’. UPS says that
this statement is both confusing and
unnecessary and recommends that we
introduce the paragraph by simply
saying, ‘‘For all airplanes: * * *’’.
We agree that the cited text, beginning
with the word ‘‘regardless,’’ is
unnecessary, and that revising the
paragraph effectivity to state, ‘‘For all
airplanes: * * *’’ is more clear. We
have revised paragraph (h) of this
supplemental NPRM accordingly.
Requests To Clarify Intent of Repair
Specified in Paragraph (i) of the
Original NPRM
Boeing and JAL request that we
change paragraph (i) of the original
NPRM to make it more clear that:
• A freeze plug repair is not feasible
to meet the requirements of paragraph
(i) of the original NPRM. Boeing
explains that although cracks found
during the inspections required by
paragraph (g) of the original NPRM can
be repaired using a freeze plug as
specified in paragraph (i) of the original
NPRM, cracks found during the
inspections required by paragraphs (f)
and (h) of the original NPRM are too
large to be repaired using freeze plugs.
• A freeze plug is not eventually
required. Boeing explains, however, that
the wording in paragraph (i) of the
original NPRM implies it in the phrase,
‘‘* * * until the freeze plug repair
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD has
been accomplished on both wings.’’
• Only cracking that cannot be
repaired by over-sizing the fastener hole
to the limit provided in the service
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
bulletin must be repaired using the
freeze plug method. JAL requests that
we add specific wording to paragraph (i)
of the original NPRM to make this clear.
We agree with the commenters’
requests. Freeze plug repairs might not
be necessary on both wings. It might be
possible to remove small crack
indications in accordance with Part 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767–57A0097,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. We
have revised paragraph (i) of this
supplemental NPRM and added a new
paragraph (j) to this supplemental
NPRM to clarify the specified points,
and we have re-identified the
subsequent paragraphs.
Request to Revise ‘‘Differences * * *’’
Section
Boeing requests that we revise the
fourth paragraph of the ‘‘Differences
between the Proposed AD and the ASB’’
(alert service bulletin) section. Boeing
specifically requests that we revise the
sentence ‘‘This proposed AD would
require that any cracking found outside
the limits of Part 1 of the ASB’’ to
instead refer to cracking outside the
limits of Part 2 of the ASB. Boeing states
that the NPRM incorrectly refers to Part
1.
We agree with Boeing that the
reference is incorrect. However Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision
1, dated October 18, 2007, clarifies the
repair actions that should be taken. In
addition, we have not retained in the
supplemental NPRM the fourth
paragraph in the section titled
‘‘Differences between the Proposed AD
and the ASB’’ from the original NPRM,
and therefore, we have not revised this
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Requests Regarding Service
Information
The Modification and Replacement
Parts Association (MARPA) requests
that the service documents deemed
essential to accomplishing the proposed
action be: (1) Incorporated by reference
into the regulatory instrument (the
Federal Register), and (2) published in
the docket management system (DMS).
MARPA justifies the first request by
stating that it is concerned that failure
to incorporate essential service
information could result in a court
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
decision invalidating the AD. MARPA
justifies the second request by stating
that publishing the service information
in the DMS would make those
documents available to a new class of
individuals that has emerged since the
majority of aircraft maintenance is now
performed by specialty shops instead of
aircraft owners and operators. Owners
and operators are provided with service
information by the manufacturer, but
specialty shops are not. MARPA adds
that publishing electronically makes
archaic the reason for incorporating by
reference—to keep from expanding the
Federal Register needlessly by
publishing documents already in the
hands of the affected individuals.
In regard to the commenter’s request
that service documents be made
available to the public by publication in
the Federal Register, we agree that
incorporation by reference was
authorized to reduce the volume of
material published in the Federal
Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations. However, as specified in
the Federal Register Document Drafting
Handbook, the Director of the Office of
the Federal Register (OFR) decides
when an agency may incorporate
material by reference. As the commenter
is aware, the OFR files documents for
public inspection on the workday before
the date of publication of the rule at its
office in Washington, D.C. As stated in
the Federal Register Document Drafting
Handbook, when documents are filed
for public inspection, anyone may
inspect filed documents during the
OFR’s hours of business. Further
questions regarding publication of
documents in the Federal Register or
incorporation by reference should be
directed to the OFR.
In regard to the commenter’s request
to post service bulletins on the
Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s)
DMS, effective September 30, 2007,
DOT’s DMS was replaced by the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS).
We are currently in the process of
reviewing issues surrounding the
posting of service bulletins on the
FDMS as part of an AD docket. Once we
have thoroughly examined all aspects of
this issue and have made a final
determination, we will consider
whether our current practice needs to be
revised.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30011
No change to this supplemental
NPRM is necessary in response to this
comment.
Explanation of Change to Paragraph (h)
of the Original NPRM
Paragraph (h) of the original NPRM
was one sentence. We have retained the
same information, but divided it into
paragraph (h), paragraph (h)(1), and
paragraph (h)(2) to make the
information more clear.
FAA’s Determination and Proposed
Requirements of the Supplemental
NPRM
The change discussed above, in the
section titled ‘‘Actions Since Original
NPRM was Issued,’’ expands the scope
of the original NPRM; therefore, we
have determined that it is necessary to
reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for public
comment on this supplemental NPRM.
Differences Between This Supplemental
NPRM and Boeing Service Bulletin
767–57A0097, Revision 1
The service bulletin specifies to
contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain
conditions, but this proposed AD would
require repairing those conditions in
one of the following ways:
• Using a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and
that have been approved by an
Authorized Representative for the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized
to make those findings.
Operators should also note that,
although the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin
describe procedures for submitting a
report of damage found, this proposed
AD would not require that action.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 918 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet,
and about 387 airplanes on the U.S.
Registry. The following table provides
the estimated costs, at an average labor
rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators
to comply with this supplemental
NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
30012
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ESTIMATED COSTS
Work
hours
Action
Parts
Cost per airplane
Fleet cost
Repetitive inspections, per inspection
cycle (Part 1).
Inspection, rework, and bolt installation
(Part 2).
Repetitive inspections for certain airplanes (Part 4).
8
None .....................................
$640, per inspection cycle ....
$247,680.
8
Between $303 and $12,716
Between $943 and $13,356
4
None .....................................
$320, per inspection cycle ....
Between $364,941, and
$5,168,772.
$123,840, per inspection
cycle.
Authority for This Rulemaking
section for a location to examine the
regulatory evaluation.
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
External Inspections of the Wing Skin
(f) For airplanes specified as Group 1,
Configuration 1, 2, 3, or 6; Group 2,
Configuration 1, 2, 3, or 6; and Group 3,
Configuration 1 or 3, as specified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007: At the later of the
times specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of
this AD, perform the detailed inspection and
the external high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) or dye penetrant inspections for
cracking as specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007. Repeat at intervals
not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000
flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the
actions required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this
AD are accomplished.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000
total flight cycles or 30,000 total flight hours,
whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first.
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.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the 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); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this supplemental NPRM and placed it
in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, 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 Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2006–25390;
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–224–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by June 17, 2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767–
200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series
airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of cracks
found in the lower wing skin originating at
the forward tension bolt holes of the aft pitch
load fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct cracking in the lower wing skin
for the forward tension bolt holes at the aft
pitch load fitting, which could result in a fuel
leak and reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Internal Inspections of the Wing Skin
(g) For airplanes specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Perform the bolt
open-hole inspections for cracking in
accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, at the times specified
in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, until the requirement of
paragraphs (h) or (j)(1) of this AD are
accomplished. Doing the actions in this
paragraph terminates the requirements of
paragraph (f) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which the
modifications of the nacelle strut and wing
structure specified in any service bulletin
listed in Table 1 of this AD have been done:
Do the inspection at the later time specified
in paragraph (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
Repeat the inspections at intervals not to
exceed 16,500 flight cycles or 65,000 flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Within 16,500 flight cycles or 65,000
flight hours, whichever occurs earlier, after
accomplishment of a service bulletin
identified in Table 1 of this AD.
(ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first.
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
30013
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—THRESHOLD SERVICE BULLETINS
Boeing Service Bulletin
767–54–0080
767–54–0080
767–54–0081
767–54–0081
767–54–0082
767–54–0082
767–54–0082
Revision
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
(2) For airplanes on which the
modifications of the nacelle strut and wing
structure specified in any service bulletin
listed in Table 1 of this AD have not been
done: Do the inspection at the later of the
times specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) and
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections at
intervals not to exceed 16,500 flight cycles or
65,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total
flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier.
(ii) Within 72 months after the effective
date of this AD.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Acceptable Method of Compliance With
Paragraph (g) of this AD
(h) For all airplanes: Doing the actions in
both paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD
is an acceptable method of compliance for
the repetitive inspection requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD after the initial
paragraph (g) inspection is accomplished.
(1) Accomplishing the inspections
specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007,
within 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight
hours, whichever occurs first, after the
accomplishment of the most recent
inspection done in accordance with
paragraph (g) of this AD (Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007).
(2) Repeating the inspections specified in
Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767–57A0097,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles or
12,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
Repair of Cracking
(i) If cracking is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (f) or (h) of
this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (o) of this AD.
(j) If cracking is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD: Before further flight, oversize the
fastener hole in accordance with Part 2, of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, except as provided
by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) If any cracking cannot be removed by
oversizing the fastener hole in accordance
with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007,
before further flight, accomplish the freeze
plug repair in accordance with Part 3 of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Dated
Original .................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................
Original .................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................
Original .................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................
October 7, 1999.
May 9, 2002.
July 29, 1999.
February 7, 2002.
October 28, 1999.
November 4, 2004.
September 20, 2007.
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, except as provided
by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Accomplishing
the freeze plug repair ends the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (f) and (g)
of this AD for the repaired wing only.
(2) If any cracking is outside the limits
specified for the freeze plug repair in Part 3
of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767–57A0097,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, before
further flight, repair in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this
AD.
Repetitive Inspections Required After Freeze
Plug Repair
(k) For airplanes on which of the
requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD
have been accomplished, perform the
repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs
(k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD at the times
specified.
(1) At the later time in paragraph (k)(1)(i)
or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD: Accomplish the
external inspections specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007. If any cracking is
found during any inspection required by this
paragraph, before further flight, repair in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the external
inspections at intervals not to exceed 3,000
flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total
flight cycles or 90,000 total flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier.
(ii) Within 18 months after
accomplishment of the freeze plug repair
specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007.
(2) At the later of the times specified in
paragraph (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD:
Perform an internal HFEC for cracking, in
accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007. If any cracking is
found during any inspection required by this
paragraph, before further flight, repair in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 12,000
flight cycles or 48,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total
flight cycles or 90,000 total flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(ii) Within 72 months after
accomplishment of the freeze plug repair
specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007.
Repair of Certain Cracking
(l) If any cracking is found during any
inspection required by this AD, and Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, specifies to contact
Boeing for appropriate action: Before further
flight, repair the cracking using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.
No Reporting Requirement
(m) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767–
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007,
specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.
Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously
(n) Actions done before the effective date
of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767–57A0097, dated
September 29, 2005, are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding
requirements of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(o)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
(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 an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who 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.
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
30014
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16,
2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–11591 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[Docket No. USCG–2004–19621]
RIN 1625–AA89
Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the
Great Lakes
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
and availability of Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
amend its regulations in accordance
with a congressionally approved policy
that allows the discharge of non-toxic
and non-hazardous bulk dry cargo
residues like limestone, iron ore, and
coal in limited areas of the Great Lakes.
New requirements for recordkeeping
would be added and carriers would be
encouraged to adopt voluntary control
measures for reducing discharges.
Discharges would be prohibited in
certain special areas where they are now
allowed. In addition, the Coast Guard
announces the availability of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
prepared in support of the proposed
rule.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before July 22, 2008.
Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on
collection of information must reach
OMB on or before July 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2004–19621 to the
Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(1) Online: https://
www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on
the Ground Floor of the West Building,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202–366–9329.
(4) Fax: 202–493–2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
please contact Mr. Greg Kirkbride, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone 202–372–1479
or e-mail Gregory.B.Kirkbride@uscg.mil.
If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call LT Heather St. Pierre, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone 202–372–1432,
e-mail Heather.J.St.Pierre@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to use the Docket Management Facility.
Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’
paragraph below.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2004–19621),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax,
or delivery to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES;
but please submit your comments and
material by only one means. If you
submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger
than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period. We may
change this proposed rule in view of
them.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov at any time,
click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ and enter
the docket number for this rulemaking
(USCG–2004–19621) in the Docket ID
box, and click enter. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of all comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation’s Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477), or you may visit https://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
D. Public Meeting
We plan to hold one public meeting
before July 22, 2008. The location and
date of the meeting will be announced
in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
II. Abbreviations
CFR United States Code of Federal
Regulations
DCR Dry Cargo Residue
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOT Department of Transportation
IEP Interim Enforcement Policy
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA United States Small Business
Administration
III. Background and Purpose
A substantial portion of Great Lakes
shipping involves ‘‘bulk dry cargos’’:
Principally limestone, iron ore, and
coal, but also lesser quantities of other
substances like cement and salt. During
ship loading or unloading operations,
small portions of these cargos often fall
on ship decks or within ship unloading
tunnels. This fallen dry cargo residue
(DCR) can contaminate other cargos or
pose safety risks to crew members.
Traditionally, Great Lakes carriers have
managed DCR by periodically washing
both the deck and cargo unloading
tunnels with water in a practice
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 101 (Friday, May 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30009-30014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11591]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2006-25390; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-224-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes. The original
NPRM would have required repetitive inspections for cracking of the
wing skin, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary.
The original NPRM resulted from reports of cracks found in the lower
wing skin originating at the forward tension bolt holes of the aft
pitch load fitting. This action revises the original NPRM by revising
certain compliance times. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to
detect and correct cracking in the lower wing skin for the forward
tension bolt holes at the aft pitch load fitting, which could result in
a fuel leak and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by June 17,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
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 AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
917-6421; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an
address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number
``Docket No. FAA-2006-25390; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-224-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite
[[Page 30010]]
comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments
received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in
light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the ``original NPRM'') for certain Boeing
Model 767 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on July 19, 2006 (71 FR 40948). The original NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections for cracking of the wing skin, and
related investigative/corrective actions if necessary.
Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM, Boeing has issued Service
Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. The
procedures in Revision 1 are essentially the same as those in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, dated September 29, 2005, which we
referred to as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions proposed in the original NPRM. However,
Revision 1 clarifies the compliance times to add a flight-hour
component. The flight-hour times were inadvertently omitted from the
original release of the service bulletin. Flight-hour compliance times
take into account those airplanes that have long flights. We have
revised this supplemental NPRM to include the clarified compliance
times.
We have also added paragraph (n) to the supplemental NPRM to give
credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, dated
September 29, 2005.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Requests To Clarify Thresholds for Internal Inspections of the Wing
Skin in Paragraph (g) of the Original NPRM
UPS and Japan Airlines (JAL) request that we clarify the thresholds
for the internal inspections of the wing skin in paragraph (g) of the
original NPRM. UPS asks that the statement ``prior to [as of] the
effective date of this AD'' be removed from paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of the original NPRM. UPS states that the current phrases,
``prior to the effective date of this AD,'' and ``as of the effective
date of this AD'' would require operators of airplanes on which one of
the strut improvement program (SIP) service bulletins (Boeing Service
Bulletins 767-54-0080, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002; 767-54-0081,
dated July 29, 1999, Revision 1, dated February 7, 2002; and 767-54-
0082, dated October 28, 1999, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2004, or
Revision 3, dated September 20, 2007) is accomplished after the
effective date of the proposed AD to be inspected at 20,000 total
aircraft cycles rather than 16,500 cycles from the accomplishment of
the SIP service bulletin. UPS concludes that this is not the intent of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097. Furthermore, UPS does not
see any relevant reason for use of this statement in paragraph (g)(1)
or (g)(2) of the original NPRM. JAL states that doing the SIP service
bulletins is equivalent to performing the bolt open hole inspection in
Part 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097.
We agree with the commenters that the wording in the original NPRM
does not give credit for work done in accordance with the SIP service
bulletins after the effective date of the proposed AD. We have revised
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this supplemental NPRM to clarify this
point.
Request To Change Inspection Threshold in Paragraph (h) of the Original
NPRM
UPS requests that we change the inspection threshold in paragraph
(h) of the original NPRM so that it is based on the preceding open-hole
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection method used. In that
case, the threshold for the paragraph (h) inspections would be 16,500
flight cycles, rather than 3,000 flight cycles, from the last
accomplishment of paragraph (g) of the NPRM. UPS agrees with the
repetitive interval of 3,000 flight cycles as currently stated in
paragraph (h) of the original NPRM.
We do not agree with the commenter that the threshold should be
based on the preceding open-hole HFEC inspection method. The external
inspection specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, will miss cracks that are hidden by the fitting until the crack
grows beyond the fitting. In particular, the Part 1 inspection will not
detect large cracks growing aft that are hidden by the fitting. Also,
there is a preload in the skin due to ``clamp-up stress'' from the
bolts. These clamp-up stresses add to uncertainty in the analysis. The
3,000-flight-cycle threshold will allow for additional opportunities to
detect possible cracks once they grow beyond the fitting. In addition,
this rationale is the intent of the manufacturer, and this intent has
been clarified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin. We have not
changed this supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Clarify the Airplane Effectivity in Paragraph (h) of the
Original NPRM
UPS requests that we revise the following statement from paragraph
(h) of the original NPRM: ``For all airplanes, regardless of whether
Boeing Service Bulletins 767-54-0080, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002;
767-54-0081, dated July 29, 1999; or 767-54-0082, dated October 28,
1999, have been accomplished * * *''. UPS says that this statement is
both confusing and unnecessary and recommends that we introduce the
paragraph by simply saying, ``For all airplanes: * * *''.
We agree that the cited text, beginning with the word
``regardless,'' is unnecessary, and that revising the paragraph
effectivity to state, ``For all airplanes: * * *'' is more clear. We
have revised paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM accordingly.
Requests To Clarify Intent of Repair Specified in Paragraph (i) of the
Original NPRM
Boeing and JAL request that we change paragraph (i) of the original
NPRM to make it more clear that:
A freeze plug repair is not feasible to meet the
requirements of paragraph (i) of the original NPRM. Boeing explains
that although cracks found during the inspections required by paragraph
(g) of the original NPRM can be repaired using a freeze plug as
specified in paragraph (i) of the original NPRM, cracks found during
the inspections required by paragraphs (f) and (h) of the original NPRM
are too large to be repaired using freeze plugs.
A freeze plug is not eventually required. Boeing explains,
however, that the wording in paragraph (i) of the original NPRM implies
it in the phrase, ``* * * until the freeze plug repair specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD has been accomplished on both wings.''
Only cracking that cannot be repaired by over-sizing the
fastener hole to the limit provided in the service
[[Page 30011]]
bulletin must be repaired using the freeze plug method. JAL requests
that we add specific wording to paragraph (i) of the original NPRM to
make this clear.
We agree with the commenters' requests. Freeze plug repairs might
not be necessary on both wings. It might be possible to remove small
crack indications in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated
October 18, 2007. We have revised paragraph (i) of this supplemental
NPRM and added a new paragraph (j) to this supplemental NPRM to clarify
the specified points, and we have re-identified the subsequent
paragraphs.
Request to Revise ``Differences * * *'' Section
Boeing requests that we revise the fourth paragraph of the
``Differences between the Proposed AD and the ASB'' (alert service
bulletin) section. Boeing specifically requests that we revise the
sentence ``This proposed AD would require that any cracking found
outside the limits of Part 1 of the ASB'' to instead refer to cracking
outside the limits of Part 2 of the ASB. Boeing states that the NPRM
incorrectly refers to Part 1.
We agree with Boeing that the reference is incorrect. However
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, clarifies the repair actions that should be taken. In addition,
we have not retained in the supplemental NPRM the fourth paragraph in
the section titled ``Differences between the Proposed AD and the ASB''
from the original NPRM, and therefore, we have not revised this
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Requests Regarding Service Information
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests
that the service documents deemed essential to accomplishing the
proposed action be: (1) Incorporated by reference into the regulatory
instrument (the Federal Register), and (2) published in the docket
management system (DMS). MARPA justifies the first request by stating
that it is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service
information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA
justifies the second request by stating that publishing the service
information in the DMS would make those documents available to a new
class of individuals that has emerged since the majority of aircraft
maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft
owners and operators. Owners and operators are provided with service
information by the manufacturer, but specialty shops are not. MARPA
adds that publishing electronically makes archaic the reason for
incorporating by reference--to keep from expanding the Federal Register
needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected
individuals.
In regard to the commenter's request that service documents be made
available to the public by publication in the Federal Register, we
agree that incorporation by reference was authorized to reduce the
volume of material published in the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations. However, as specified in the Federal Register
Document Drafting Handbook, the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) decides when an agency may incorporate material by
reference. As the commenter is aware, the OFR files documents for
public inspection on the workday before the date of publication of the
rule at its office in Washington, D.C. As stated in the Federal
Register Document Drafting Handbook, when documents are filed for
public inspection, anyone may inspect filed documents during the OFR's
hours of business. Further questions regarding publication of documents
in the Federal Register or incorporation by reference should be
directed to the OFR.
In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on
the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) DMS, effective September 30,
2007, DOT's DMS was replaced by the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS). We are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding
the posting of service bulletins on the FDMS as part of an AD docket.
Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have
made a final determination, we will consider whether our current
practice needs to be revised.
No change to this supplemental NPRM is necessary in response to
this comment.
Explanation of Change to Paragraph (h) of the Original NPRM
Paragraph (h) of the original NPRM was one sentence. We have
retained the same information, but divided it into paragraph (h),
paragraph (h)(1), and paragraph (h)(2) to make the information more
clear.
FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM
The change discussed above, in the section titled ``Actions Since
Original NPRM was Issued,'' expands the scope of the original NPRM;
therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on
this supplemental NPRM.
Differences Between This Supplemental NPRM and Boeing Service Bulletin
767-57A0097, Revision 1
The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
Using a method that we approve; or
Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.
Operators should also note that, although the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin describe procedures for submitting
a report of damage found, this proposed AD would not require that
action.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 918 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet, and about 387 airplanes on the U.S. Registry. The
following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate
of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental
NPRM.
[[Page 30012]]
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work
Action hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections, per 8 None................. $640, per inspection $247,680.
inspection cycle (Part 1). cycle.
Inspection, rework, and bolt 8 Between $303 and Between $943 and Between $364,941, and
installation (Part 2). $12,716. $13,356. $5,168,772.
Repetitive inspections for certain 4 None................. $320, per inspection $123,840, per
airplanes (Part 4). cycle. inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2006-25390; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-
224-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 17,
2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October
18, 2007.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of cracks found in the lower
wing skin originating at the forward tension bolt holes of the aft
pitch load fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking in the lower wing skin for the forward tension bolt holes
at the aft pitch load fitting, which could result in a fuel leak and
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
External Inspections of the Wing Skin
(f) For airplanes specified as Group 1, Configuration 1, 2, 3,
or 6; Group 2, Configuration 1, 2, 3, or 6; and Group 3,
Configuration 1 or 3, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007: At the later of the
times specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, perform
the detailed inspection and the external high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) or dye penetrant inspections for cracking as specified in
Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. Repeat at intervals
not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, until the actions required by paragraph (g) or (j) of
this AD are accomplished.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles or
30,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
Internal Inspections of the Wing Skin
(g) For airplanes specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD: Perform the bolt open-hole inspections for cracking in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, at
the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, until the requirement of paragraphs (h) or (j)(1) of
this AD are accomplished. Doing the actions in this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which the modifications of the nacelle
strut and wing structure specified in any service bulletin listed in
Table 1 of this AD have been done: Do the inspection at the later
time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 16,500 flight
cycles or 65,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Within 16,500 flight cycles or 65,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier, after accomplishment of a service bulletin
identified in Table 1 of this AD.
(ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
[[Page 30013]]
Table 1.--Threshold Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Service Bulletin Revision Dated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
767-54-0080.............................. Original.................... October 7, 1999.
767-54-0080.............................. 1........................... May 9, 2002.
767-54-0081.............................. Original.................... July 29, 1999.
767-54-0081.............................. 1........................... February 7, 2002.
767-54-0082.............................. Original.................... October 28, 1999.
767-54-0082.............................. 1........................... November 4, 2004.
767-54-0082.............................. 3........................... September 20, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) For airplanes on which the modifications of the nacelle
strut and wing structure specified in any service bulletin listed in
Table 1 of this AD have not been done: Do the inspection at the
later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii)
of this AD. Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 16,500
flight cycles or 65,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or
60,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
(ii) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.
Acceptable Method of Compliance With Paragraph (g) of this AD
(h) For all airplanes: Doing the actions in both paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD is an acceptable method of compliance
for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this
AD after the initial paragraph (g) inspection is accomplished.
(1) Accomplishing the inspections specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, within 3,000 flight cycles or
12,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the
accomplishment of the most recent inspection done in accordance with
paragraph (g) of this AD (Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October
18, 2007).
(2) Repeating the inspections specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, at intervals not to exceed 3,000
flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
Repair of Cracking
(i) If cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (f) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this
AD.
(j) If cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, oversize the
fastener hole in accordance with Part 2, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, except as provided by paragraphs (j)(1) and
(j)(2) of this AD.
(1) If any cracking cannot be removed by oversizing the fastener
hole in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, before further flight, accomplish the freeze plug repair in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007,
except as provided by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Accomplishing the
freeze plug repair ends the repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD for the repaired wing only.
(2) If any cracking is outside the limits specified for the
freeze plug repair in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, before further flight, repair in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.
Repetitive Inspections Required After Freeze Plug Repair
(k) For airplanes on which of the requirements of paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD have been accomplished, perform the repetitive
inspections specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD at
the times specified.
(1) At the later time in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of
this AD: Accomplish the external inspections specified in Part 1 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. If any cracking is
found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before
further flight, repair in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the external inspections at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total flight cycles or
90,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
(ii) Within 18 months after accomplishment of the freeze plug
repair specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007.
(2) At the later of the times specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i)
or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD: Perform an internal HFEC for cracking, in
accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. If
any cracking is found during any inspection required by this
paragraph, before further flight, repair in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles or
48,000 flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total flight cycles or
90,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
(ii) Within 72 months after accomplishment of the freeze plug
repair specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007.
Repair of Certain Cracking
(l) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated
October 18, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(o) of this AD.
No Reporting Requirement
(m) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, specifies to submit certain information to
the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously
(n) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, dated
September 29, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(o)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
(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 an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who 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.
[[Page 30014]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-11591 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
