Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, 21429-21433 [2012-8228]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane. (j) Related Information For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov. (k) Material Incorporated by Reference You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the following service information. (1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 53A2835, dated October 28, 2010. (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 53A2835, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2011. (3) 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; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. (4) 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. (5) You may also review copies of the 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 March 28, 2012. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2012–8232 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES [Docket No. FAA–2011–0025; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–208–AD; Amendment 39–17012; AD 2012–07–06] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 ACTION: Discussion Final rule. We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a new revision to the airworthiness limitations of the maintenance planning document. This AD requires revising the maintenance program to update inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs). We are issuing this AD to ensure that fatigue cracking of various PSEs is detected and corrected; such fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. SUMMARY: This AD is effective May 15, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 15, 2012. ADDRESSES: 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; email me.boecom@boeing.com; 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. DATES: 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: James Sutherland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 917–6533; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: James.Sutherland@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 21429 Sfmt 4700 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. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3054). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program to update inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs). Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) and the FAA’s response to each comment. Request To Refer to Latest Service Information Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to refer to two new revisions of Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, published after we issued the NPRM. Boeing stated that both revisions contain the same structures airworthiness limitations (AWL) data, but were revised for reasons that did not affect the data in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections of that document, which was specified in the NPRM. We agree with the request to refer to the later service information. We have changed this final rule to refer to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document to this AD. (Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document was specified in the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011).) (Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document is identical to the January 2010 revision.) We have changed paragraph (g) in this final rule accordingly. E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 21430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Request To Revise Inspection Requirements for Certain Airplanes JAL requested that, for certain airplanes, we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to require inspection procedures and intervals as determined by the damage tolerance rating check form, rather than Section 2, Structural Inspection Program, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. JAL acknowledged that Section 2 of this MPD document usually incorporates recommended inspection procedures and intervals. JAL noted, however, that Section 2 in the latest revision of this MPD document includes data only for Model 777–200 series airplanes. Since no data are provided for the remaining airplanes affected by this AD (Model 777–200LR, –300, –300ER, and 777F series airplanes), JAL requested that those airplanes be excluded from the requirement until the MPD document includes relevant data. We do not agree that the requested change is necessary, because the information regarding required inspection methods and intervals for these airplanes is provided in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Request To Retain Applicability Boeing also advised that the revised inspection requirements in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, affect only Model 777–200, –300, –300ER and –200LR series airplanes. Boeing reported that Section 9 of the Boeing 777F MPD document was previously developed based on the same damage tolerance methods and the same fleet and full-scale test data as those included in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Boeing asserted, therefore, that Model 777F series airplanes should be included in the applicability of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) regardless of changes made to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Including those airplanes will ensure the ability to obtain approval of potential future deviations for repairs or alternative inspections via alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) (as described in paragraph (j) of this AD). Boeing made this comment in the event another party requested that we remove Model 777F series airplanes from the NPRM. We acknowledge Boeing’s concern, and agree that there is no reason to remove Model 777F series airplanes from the applicability specified in the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011). We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Remove Certain Advisory Circular Reference Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) (paragraph (c)(2) of this AD) provided guidance on certain revised operator maintenance documents that include new inspections. Boeing requested that we remove the last sentence of that note, which stated that guidance for the determination can be found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529–1A, dated November 20, 2007 (http:// rgl.faa.gov/ Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). Boeing stated that this AC, as revised, applies only to airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross weight, so this AC no longer applies to Model 777 airplanes. We agree with Boeing’s request and rationale. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly. Request To Allow Additional Alternative Inspections and Intervals American Airlines (AAL) and Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011), which prohibited alternative inspections or intervals except as specifically approved as AMOCs. To reduce the workload associated with requesting and approving AMOCs, the commenters requested that we include other specified procedures and intervals. Structurally Significant Items (SSIs) 53–00–I01, –I02, and –I03 define the entire fuselage skin as an SSI, and AAL was concerned that the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) provided no guidance or information on how to address new and existing repairs. AAL surmised that any external doubler repair (past or future) would conceal a portion of the skin and would need AMOC approval for the inspection, which would be impossible to perform PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 with the repair in place. AAL contended that any repair approved in accordance with section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) or section 26.43(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)) has been addressed for fatigue and damage tolerance and would provide the level of safety desired by the NPRM. Boeing requested that we also allow alternative inspections and intervals specified in a later revision to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Since Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document changes frequently and is FAA approved, no subsequent reapproval should be necessary via AMOC. Boeing also requested that we allow alternative inspections and intervals if certain damage tolerance requirements have been met in accordance with section 25.571(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571(b)), or section 26.43(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)), or section 26.43(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)). We disagree with the requests. Paragraph (h) in this AD requires compliance with the inspections unless AMOC approval is obtained as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Allowing later revisions of service documents in an AD violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. Affected operators may, however, request approval to use a later revision of referenced service information as an alternative method of compliance. In response to AAL’s concern, operators must request a method of compliance to address new and existing repairs, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of the final rule. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Allow Optional Materials AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to allow the optional use of BMS materials (sealants) permitted in Boeing Document D–590, the Boeing 777 Airplane Maintenance Manual, or the Boeing 777 Structural Repair Manual— instead of the specific materials specified in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Data (MPD) Document. The use of alternative materials would allow for ready compliance if the current BMS materials were discontinued or improved. We disagree with the request. The documents referenced by the commenter specify specific procedures to remove the sealant, rather than specific types of sealant. Further, some existing ADs including those related to Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88’’), Amendment 21–78 and subsequent Amendments 21–82 and 21– 83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002), require specific sealants, which may be identified in the BMS specifications, but only certain sealants may be used to comply with SFAR88; operators are limited to the use of sealants approved by other AD actions in areas that overlap with this AD. The application of the sealants and materials in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations— Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, is often controlled by other ADs that mandate the use of certain sealants for Subsections D and E (of SFAR88). Operators may request an AMOC to use materials that have been determined to be acceptable for the various ADs applicable to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Request To Consider Future Boeing Delegated Compliance Organization Delegation Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011), which provides information about AMOCs for repairs. Boeing requested that we also specify AMOCs for inspection methods, since there may be instances where the operator cannot conduct the inspection method specified in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, identified in the NPRM. Although authority to approve AMOCs for supplemental inspections of baseline structure may not currently exist for the Boeing Delegated Compliance Organization (BDCO), Boeing suggested that including both repairs and VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 inspections would allow for potential future expansion of delegation. We disagree with the request. The nondiscretionary basis for this type of delegation has not yet been developed. At present, the FAA must approve tasks that involve discretion, and may delegate only nondiscretionary tasks. In any event, any change to delegation authority in the future will not affect the AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Clarify Allowable Equivalent Procedures AAL requested clarification of certain procedures. AAL observed the phrase ‘‘refer to,’’ used in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, to specify certain chapters in an AMM. AAL noted that use of this phrase in service bulletins allows operators to use their equivalent procedures. AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to state that equivalent procedures are acceptable where the phrase ‘‘refer to’’ is used in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. We disagree with the request. As the commenter noted, the phrase ‘‘refer to’’ is used in both AMMs and Boeing service bulletins. In a service bulletin, use of the phrase ‘‘refer to’’ generally means that a determination was made to permit operators’ equivalent procedures where applicable, and use of the phrase ‘‘as given in’’ or ‘‘in accordance with’’ generally means that operators’ equivalent procedures are not acceptable. But these definitions do not apply to Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, for which operators’ equivalent procedures are not specifically allowed. Under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this final rule, however, we will consider requests for approval to use different procedures, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the procedures would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 21431 Request To Revise Compliance Time for Inspecting Replacement Parts Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to permit the compliance time thresholds to be reset for new replacement parts. Boeing asserted that Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document does not explicitly state that the inspection threshold for new parts starts when the part is replaced, and that other existing ADs include terminating action that zerotimes certain fastener locations. Boeing made this request to allow operators to take credit for the younger life of those parts. We agree that this change is necessary to accommodate new replacement parts. We have changed the initial compliance time accordingly in paragraph (g) of this AD. Request To Revise Compliance Time for Reporting JAL noted that Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document includes a reporting timeframe of 10 days after an inspection finding. JAL reported that these inspections are often accomplished during a heavy maintenance inspection where many inspections are accomplished over many days. Tracking all of the reporting at the time of return to service is easier rather than sending individual events occurring during the maintenance check. JAL therefore requested that the reporting time frames be revised from 10 days after a finding to 10 days after the airplane is returned to service. We agree with JAL’s request and rationale. We have added this reporting provision in paragraph (g) in the final rule. We have also added new paragraph (i) in this final rule to explain the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires agencies to consider the extent of the paperwork burden that will accompany any new rule. And we have reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Request To Revise Compliance Time Determination Boeing noted that FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120–93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/ Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf) provides E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 21432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations guidance for addressing damage tolerance inspection requirements for repairs and alterations to certain removable structural components. Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to add a provision to paragraph (g) of the NPRM, allowing FAA AC 120–93 as a means to establish compliance times for rotable parts where the data are not available. We disagree. That AC provides guidance and an acceptable means for developing the age of removable parts for the purpose of determining compliance times for repairs and alterations. If the actual age, flight hours, and flight cycles are unknown for a part affected by the AD, we would consider the operator’s request for an AMOC. This allows Boeing and operators the option to propose methods in detail that use FAA AC 120–93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/ Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf), for guidance. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Explanation of Additional Changes Made to This AD Request To Clarify Certain PSEs Wang Jian requested clarification of the identity of certain PSEs. Attached to this comment was a copy of a page from the Boeing 777F Structural Repair Manual, which identified primary structure for repair classification. From this page, the commenter observed that the main deck floor panels are identified as PSEs on Model 777F series airplanes, but not on other aircraft such as Model 747–400F series airplanes. Although the commenter’s question concerning the PSE differences between the Model 747 and 777 is not related to the inspections required by this AD, the intent of the question may be explained in more detail in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529–1A, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/ Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. We have redesignated Note 1 and Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) as paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD respectively. These changes have not changed the intent of this AD. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 153 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: ESTIMATED COSTS Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Maintenance program revision ... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ................................................. $0 $85 $13,005 Authority for This Rulemaking tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 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. distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Regulatory Findings Adoption of the Amendment 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 Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): ■ 2012–07–06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39–17012; Docket No. FAA–2011–0025; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–208–AD. (a) Effective Date This AD is effective May 15, 2012. (b) Affected ADs None. (c) Applicability This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, –300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued before September 1, 2010. (1) Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after September 1, 2010, must already be in compliance with the airworthiness E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations limitations (AWLs) specified in this AD because those limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness certification of those airplanes. (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. (3) Reports specified in Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document may be submitted within 10 days after the airplane is returned to service, instead of 10 days after each individual finding as specified in this document. (d) Subject Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 27, Flight Controls; 28, Fuel; 32, Landing Gear; 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; and 57, Wings. (i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200. (e) Unsafe Condition This AD was prompted by a new revision to the airworthiness limitations of the maintenance planning document. We are issuing this AD to ensure that fatigue cracking of various principal structural elements (PSEs) is detected and corrected; such fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES (f) Compliance Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. (g) Revision of Maintenance Program (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance program by incorporating the information in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations— Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. (2) The initial compliance time for the inspections is within the applicable times specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections, of Section 9, of ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, or within the applicable time specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations— Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, from the time of installation for new parts. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 (h) Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless the alternative inspection or interval is approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. (j) 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 the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-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 in the areas affected 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 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 21433 the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. (k) Related Information For more information about this AD, contact James Sutherland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6533; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: James.Sutherland@faa.gov. (l) Material Incorporated by Reference (1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the following service information: (i) Section 9, ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),’’ D622W001–9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. (2) 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; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. (3) You may review copies of the 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. (4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202–741– 6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/ federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ ibr_locations.html. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 23, 2012. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2012–8228 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG–2010–1145] RIN 1625–AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific Sound Resources and Lockheed Shipyard EPA Superfund Cleanup Sites, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM Coast Guard, DHS. 10APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21429-21433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8228]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0025; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-208-AD; 
Amendment 39-17012; AD 2012-07-06]
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 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a new 
revision to the airworthiness limitations of the maintenance planning 
document. This AD requires revising the maintenance program to update 
inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of principal 
structural elements (PSEs). We are issuing this AD to ensure that 
fatigue cracking of various PSEs is detected and corrected; such 
fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of 
these airplanes.

DATES: This AD is effective May 15, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: 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; email me.boecom@boeing.com; 
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: James Sutherland, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6533; fax: (425) 917-6590; email: James.Sutherland@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. 
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 
3054). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program 
to update inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of 
principal structural elements (PSEs).

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
(76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Refer to Latest Service Information

    Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we revise the NPRM 
(76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to refer to two new revisions of Section 
9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 
Planning Data (MPD) Document, published after we issued the NPRM. 
Boeing stated that both revisions contain the same structures 
airworthiness limitations (AWL) data, but were revised for reasons that 
did not affect the data in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--
Structural Inspections of that document, which was specified in the 
NPRM.
    We agree with the request to refer to the later service 
information. We have changed this final rule to refer to Section 9, 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document to this AD. (Section 9, 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document was specified in the NPRM 
(76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011).) (Subsection B, Airworthiness 
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness 
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' 
D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document 
is identical to the January 2010 revision.) We have changed paragraph 
(g) in this final rule accordingly.

[[Page 21430]]

Request To Revise Inspection Requirements for Certain Airplanes

    JAL requested that, for certain airplanes, we revise paragraph (g) 
of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to require inspection 
procedures and intervals as determined by the damage tolerance rating 
check form, rather than Section 2, Structural Inspection Program, of 
the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. JAL 
acknowledged that Section 2 of this MPD document usually incorporates 
recommended inspection procedures and intervals. JAL noted, however, 
that Section 2 in the latest revision of this MPD document includes 
data only for Model 777-200 series airplanes. Since no data are 
provided for the remaining airplanes affected by this AD (Model 777-
200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes), JAL requested that 
those airplanes be excluded from the requirement until the MPD document 
includes relevant data.
    We do not agree that the requested change is necessary, because the 
information regarding required inspection methods and intervals for 
these airplanes is provided in Subsection B, Airworthiness 
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness 
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' 
D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning 
Data (MPD) Document. We have not changed the final rule regarding this 
issue.

Request To Retain Applicability

    Boeing also advised that the revised inspection requirements in 
Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of 
the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, affect only 
Model 777-200, -300, -300ER and -200LR series airplanes. Boeing 
reported that Section 9 of the Boeing 777F MPD document was previously 
developed based on the same damage tolerance methods and the same fleet 
and full-scale test data as those included in Section 9, 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Boeing asserted, 
therefore, that Model 777F series airplanes should be included in the 
applicability of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) regardless of 
changes made to Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision 
July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. 
Including those airplanes will ensure the ability to obtain approval of 
potential future deviations for repairs or alternative inspections via 
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) (as described in paragraph 
(j) of this AD). Boeing made this comment in the event another party 
requested that we remove Model 777F series airplanes from the NPRM.
    We acknowledge Boeing's concern, and agree that there is no reason 
to remove Model 777F series airplanes from the applicability specified 
in the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011). We have not changed the 
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Remove Certain Advisory Circular Reference

    Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) (paragraph (c)(2) 
of this AD) provided guidance on certain revised operator maintenance 
documents that include new inspections. Boeing requested that we remove 
the last sentence of that note, which stated that guidance for the 
determination can be found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A, 
dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). Boeing stated that this AC, as 
revised, applies only to airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross weight, so 
this AC no longer applies to Model 777 airplanes.
    We agree with Boeing's request and rationale. We have revised 
paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Allow Additional Alternative Inspections and Intervals

    American Airlines (AAL) and Boeing requested that we revise 
paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011), which 
prohibited alternative inspections or intervals except as specifically 
approved as AMOCs. To reduce the workload associated with requesting 
and approving AMOCs, the commenters requested that we include other 
specified procedures and intervals.
    Structurally Significant Items (SSIs) 53-00-I01, -I02, and -I03 
define the entire fuselage skin as an SSI, and AAL was concerned that 
the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) provided no guidance or 
information on how to address new and existing repairs. AAL surmised 
that any external doubler repair (past or future) would conceal a 
portion of the skin and would need AMOC approval for the inspection, 
which would be impossible to perform with the repair in place. AAL 
contended that any repair approved in accordance with section 25.571 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) or section 26.43(c) of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)) has been addressed 
for fatigue and damage tolerance and would provide the level of safety 
desired by the NPRM.
    Boeing requested that we also allow alternative inspections and 
intervals specified in a later revision to Section 9, ``Airworthiness 
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' 
D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. 
Since Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document changes frequently and is FAA 
approved, no subsequent re-approval should be necessary via AMOC. 
Boeing also requested that we allow alternative inspections and 
intervals if certain damage tolerance requirements have been met in 
accordance with section 25.571(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations 
(14 CFR 25.571(b)), or section 26.43(c) of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)), or section 26.43(d) of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)).
    We disagree with the requests. Paragraph (h) in this AD requires 
compliance with the inspections unless AMOC approval is obtained as 
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Allowing later revisions of 
service documents in an AD violates Office of the Federal Register 
regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. Affected 
operators may, however, request approval to use a later revision of 
referenced service information as an alternative method of compliance. 
In response to AAL's concern, operators must request a method of 
compliance to address new and existing repairs, under the provisions of 
paragraph (j) of the final rule. We have not changed the final rule 
regarding this issue.

Request To Allow Optional Materials

    AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 
2011) to allow the optional use of BMS materials (sealants) permitted 
in Boeing Document D-590, the Boeing 777 Airplane Maintenance Manual, 
or the Boeing 777 Structural Repair Manual--instead of the specific 
materials specified in Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, 
Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning

[[Page 21431]]

Data (MPD) Document. The use of alternative materials would allow for 
ready compliance if the current BMS materials were discontinued or 
improved.
    We disagree with the request. The documents referenced by the 
commenter specify specific procedures to remove the sealant, rather 
than specific types of sealant. Further, some existing ADs including 
those related to Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 
88''), Amendment 21-78 and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83 (67 FR 
72830, December 9, 2002), require specific sealants, which may be 
identified in the BMS specifications, but only certain sealants may be 
used to comply with SFAR88; operators are limited to the use of 
sealants approved by other AD actions in areas that overlap with this 
AD. The application of the sealants and materials in Subsection B, 
Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, is often controlled by 
other ADs that mandate the use of certain sealants for Subsections D 
and E (of SFAR88). Operators may request an AMOC to use materials that 
have been determined to be acceptable for the various ADs applicable to 
Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of 
the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. We have not 
changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Consider Future Boeing Delegated Compliance Organization 
Delegation

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR 
3054, January 19, 2011), which provides information about AMOCs for 
repairs. Boeing requested that we also specify AMOCs for inspection 
methods, since there may be instances where the operator cannot conduct 
the inspection method specified in Section 9, ``Airworthiness 
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' 
D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 
Planning Data (MPD) Document, identified in the NPRM. Although 
authority to approve AMOCs for supplemental inspections of baseline 
structure may not currently exist for the Boeing Delegated Compliance 
Organization (BDCO), Boeing suggested that including both repairs and 
inspections would allow for potential future expansion of delegation.
    We disagree with the request. The nondiscretionary basis for this 
type of delegation has not yet been developed. At present, the FAA must 
approve tasks that involve discretion, and may delegate only 
nondiscretionary tasks. In any event, any change to delegation 
authority in the future will not affect the AD. We have not changed the 
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Allowable Equivalent Procedures

    AAL requested clarification of certain procedures. AAL observed the 
phrase ``refer to,'' used in Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations 
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, 
Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 
(MPD) Document, to specify certain chapters in an AMM. AAL noted that 
use of this phrase in service bulletins allows operators to use their 
equivalent procedures. AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 
3054, January 19, 2011) to state that equivalent procedures are 
acceptable where the phrase ``refer to'' is used in Section 9, 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.
    We disagree with the request. As the commenter noted, the phrase 
``refer to'' is used in both AMMs and Boeing service bulletins. In a 
service bulletin, use of the phrase ``refer to'' generally means that a 
determination was made to permit operators' equivalent procedures where 
applicable, and use of the phrase ``as given in'' or ``in accordance 
with'' generally means that operators' equivalent procedures are not 
acceptable. But these definitions do not apply to Section 9, 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, for which operators' 
equivalent procedures are not specifically allowed. Under the 
provisions of paragraph (j) of this final rule, however, we will 
consider requests for approval to use different procedures, if 
sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the procedures would 
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final 
rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Inspecting Replacement Parts

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 
3054, January 19, 2011) to permit the compliance time thresholds to be 
reset for new replacement parts. Boeing asserted that Section 9, 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document does not explicitly state 
that the inspection threshold for new parts starts when the part is 
replaced, and that other existing ADs include terminating action that 
zero-times certain fastener locations. Boeing made this request to 
allow operators to take credit for the younger life of those parts.
    We agree that this change is necessary to accommodate new 
replacement parts. We have changed the initial compliance time 
accordingly in paragraph (g) of this AD.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Reporting

    JAL noted that Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision 
July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document 
includes a reporting timeframe of 10 days after an inspection finding. 
JAL reported that these inspections are often accomplished during a 
heavy maintenance inspection where many inspections are accomplished 
over many days. Tracking all of the reporting at the time of return to 
service is easier rather than sending individual events occurring 
during the maintenance check. JAL therefore requested that the 
reporting time frames be revised from 10 days after a finding to 10 
days after the airplane is returned to service.
    We agree with JAL's request and rationale. We have added this 
reporting provision in paragraph (g) in the final rule. We have also 
added new paragraph (i) in this final rule to explain the requirements 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires agencies to consider the 
extent of the paperwork burden that will accompany any new rule. And we 
have reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Revise Compliance Time Determination

    Boeing noted that FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-93, dated November 
20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf) provides

[[Page 21432]]

guidance for addressing damage tolerance inspection requirements for 
repairs and alterations to certain removable structural components. 
Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) 
to add a provision to paragraph (g) of the NPRM, allowing FAA AC 120-93 
as a means to establish compliance times for rotable parts where the 
data are not available.
    We disagree. That AC provides guidance and an acceptable means for 
developing the age of removable parts for the purpose of determining 
compliance times for repairs and alterations. If the actual age, flight 
hours, and flight cycles are unknown for a part affected by the AD, we 
would consider the operator's request for an AMOC. This allows Boeing 
and operators the option to propose methods in detail that use FAA AC 
120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf), for guidance. We have not 
changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Certain PSEs

    Wang Jian requested clarification of the identity of certain PSEs. 
Attached to this comment was a copy of a page from the Boeing 777F 
Structural Repair Manual, which identified primary structure for repair 
classification. From this page, the commenter observed that the main 
deck floor panels are identified as PSEs on Model 777F series 
airplanes, but not on other aircraft such as Model 747-400F series 
airplanes.
    Although the commenter's question concerning the PSE differences 
between the Model 747 and 777 is not related to the inspections 
required by this AD, the intent of the question may be explained in 
more detail in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A, dated November 
20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). We have not changed the final rule regarding 
this issue.

Explanation of Additional Changes Made to This AD

    We have redesignated Note 1 and Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, 
January 19, 2011) as paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD 
respectively. These changes have not changed the intent of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that 
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 153 airplanes of U.S. 
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Cost per    Cost on U.S.
                Action                            Labor cost             Parts cost      product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision..........  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =             $0           $85       $13,005
                                         $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    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):

2012-07-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17012; Docket No. FAA-
2011-0025; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-208-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 15, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any 
category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original 
export certificate of airworthiness issued before September 1, 2010.
    (1) Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or 
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after 
September 1, 2010, must already be in compliance with the 
airworthiness

[[Page 21433]]

limitations (AWLs) specified in this AD because those limitations 
were applicable as part of the airworthiness certification of those 
airplanes.
    (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance 
documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these 
inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have 
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas 
addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to 
accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this 
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must 
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according 
to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a 
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure 
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Codes 27, Flight Controls; 28, Fuel; 32, Landing 
Gear; 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 
and 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a new revision to the airworthiness 
limitations of the maintenance planning document. We are issuing 
this AD to ensure that fatigue cracking of various principal 
structural elements (PSEs) is detected and corrected; such fatigue 
cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these 
airplanes.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance Program

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise 
the maintenance program by incorporating the information in 
Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of 
Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, 
of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, except 
as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) The initial compliance time for the inspections is within 
the applicable times specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness 
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, of 
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, or within 18 months 
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, or 
within the applicable time specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness 
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness 
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements 
(CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, from the time of 
installation for new parts.
    (3) Reports specified in Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations 
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' 
D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance 
Planning Data (MPD) Document may be submitted within 10 days after 
the airplane is returned to service, instead of 10 days after each 
individual finding as specified in this document.

(h) Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals

    After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of 
this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be 
used unless the alternative inspection or interval is approved as an 
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the 
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

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

(j) 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 the Related Information 
section 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 in the areas affected 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.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact James Sutherland, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 
917-6533; fax: (425) 917-6590; email: James.Sutherland@faa.gov.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the 
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The 
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the 
following service information:
    (i) Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, 
Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data 
(MPD) Document.
    (2) 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; email 
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the 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.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that 
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 23, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-8228 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P