Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, 67043-67049 [2018-28077]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply. (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 247001 (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator’s maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 18, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2018–28075 Filed 12–27–18; 8:45 am] (k) Related Information For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3555; email: Kevin.Nguyen@faa.gov. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration (l) Material Incorporated by Reference 14 CFR Part 39 (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777–28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015. (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 777–31–0218, dated September 8, 2016. (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet https:// www.myboeingfleet.com. (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to https:// [Docket No. FAA–2018–0393; Product Identifier 2018–NM–010–AD; Amendment 39–19536; AD 2018–26–06] PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of loose, worn, or missing attachment bolts for the main landing gear (MLG) center door assemblies. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the forward and aft MLG center door assembly attachments for loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip assemblies as applicable; and applicable on-condition actions. This AD also provides an SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 ER28DE18.009</GPH> amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES (i) Terminating Action for AD 2015–19–01 Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD on all affected airplanes in an operator’s fleet terminates all requirements of AD 2015–19– 01. 67043 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES 67044 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 1, 2019. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 0393. center door assembly attachments for loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip assemblies as applicable; and applicable on-condition actions. The NPRM also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip assemblies, which could result in departure of the center and inboard MLG door assemblies, subsequent damage to the main flap and horizontal stabilizer, and loss of control of the airplane. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 0393; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800–647–5527) is 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: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206– 231–3527; email: alan.pohl@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Boeing and The Air Line Pilots Association, International, each stated that it concurred with the intent of the NPRM. Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2018 (83 FR 21948). The NPRM was prompted by reports of loose, worn, or missing attachment bolts for the MLG center door assemblies. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections of the forward and aft MLG VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 247001 Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA’s response to each comment. Support for the NPRM Request for Changes to Service Information Alaska Airlines (Alaska) requested that changes be made to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52– 1170, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017 (‘‘BSASB 737–52–1170, R1’’). Alaska noted that operators cannot comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD in cases where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, directs the operator to inspect a Group 3 airplane using Figure 3 or Figure 4 of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, because those figures are not applicable to Group 3 airplanes. We agree with the commenter’s observations concerning Figure 3 and Figure 4 of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. We contacted Boeing and have determined that the actions for Group 2 airplanes are appropriate for all airplanes to comply with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD, ‘‘Exceptions to Service Information Specifications,’’ by adding paragraph (h)(2), which states that ‘‘Where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, limits use of Figures 3 and 4 to Group 2 airplanes, for the purposes of this AD, those figures apply to all airplane groups.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Request for Clarification of the Requirements of Paragraph (j) of the Proposed AD Alaska requested clarification of the requirements specified in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD and clarification of which airplane groups would be affected by these requirements. Alaska asked if ‘‘all actions for Group 3’’ means that this paragraph is for Group 3 airplanes only or for all airplane groups. Alaska also noted that an inspection of the ‘‘door assembly’’ implies an inspection of the door, but BSASB 737– 52–1170, R1, describes procedures for inspection of the ‘‘door installation.’’ We agree with the commenter’s request and have revised paragraph (j) of this AD as follows: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly on any airplane identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 airplanes pertaining to that MLG center door attachment, and identified as RC in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, have been accomplished on that MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly within the compliance times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. The actions for Group 3 airplanes apply to all airplanes for the requirement of this paragraph. Request To Include Identification Method for Post-Modification Door American Airlines (American) requested that BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, be revised to include an identifying stencil or placard that could be placed on an affected MLG center door assembly once it has been modified. The commenter stated that the MLG center door assembly is a rotable part. However, neither the NPRM nor BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, addresses the issue of a post-modification MLG center door assembly being removed from an airplane and replaced with a premodification MLG center door assembly. We acknowledge the commenter’s concern that BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, does not address the rotability of an MLG center door assembly. We addressed the issue of rotability in this AD in two ways. First, the applicability in paragraph (c) of this AD includes all Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, not just the airplanes specified in the effectivity of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. Second, we added paragraph (j) of this AD, ‘‘Parts Installation Limitation’’. While marking or part marking might provide some benefit for operator awareness and recordkeeping, the issue E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES of rotability is approached in different ways by different operators. When there have been similar issues regarding rotable parts, operators expressed a preference to not have a requirement to mark and/or part mark, although operators may do this at their own discretion. We also note that this AD addresses not only the MLG center door assembly but also the attachments to the MLG strut assemblies. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue. Request To Extend the Compliance Time Delta Air Lines (DAL) and SunExpress (SXS) requested that the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be extended. SXS requested that the compliance time for the initial inspection be extended from 12,000 total flight cycles to 20,000 total flight cycles, or from 800 flight cycles after the effective date of the proposed AD to 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of the proposed AD, and that the interval for the repetitive inspection be extended from 5,500 flight cycles to 6,600 flight cycles. SXS stated that 41 airplanes in its fleet have exceeded 12,000 total flight cycles, and it would have a short period of time to perform the required inspection as described in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, and it would have to operate some airplanes a long time without the MLG shock strut doors. SXS noted that performing operations without a MLG shock strut door incurs a fuel burn penalty, which is approximately 0.77% more fuel burned per flight. DAL stated that the compliance time for the initial inspection would require them to inspect approximately 80 airplanes in a 200-day period, requiring them to accomplish the work for most of its airplanes in the line environment, which increases the risk for an ‘‘airplane on ground’’ situation if there is a finding on the MLG structure. DAL noted that BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, does not provide relief for operators when a crack or corrosion is found in the MLG lug after removal of the bushing. For an MLG that requires re-work, DAL typically removes the MLG, replaces it with another MLG, and sends the discrepant MLG to a shop for repair. We infer that DAL is requesting that the compliance time for the initial inspection be extended. In addition, DAL pointed out that the procedures in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, would restrict an operator from dispatching an affected airplane until corrective is taken to repair the MLG. DAL requested that this situation be considered in the final rule by providing a limited return to service. DAL stated VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 247001 that if several MLG lugs are found with discrepancies, there is the potential of the operator grounding airplanes outside of a heavy maintenance check to either replace the MLG gear or go through its spare parts inventory. We do not agree with the commenters’ requests. We appreciate the impact that the required actions and the associated compliance times will have on operators. However, both the FAA and Boeing have identified this issue as an unsafe condition, and the commenters have not provided substantiating data for their proposals. In addition, a limited return to service would not be appropriate for dispatching airplanes with known cracking or corrosion. As SXS has noted, airplanes may be operated with the MLG shock strut center and inner doors removed until repairs can be made. We have reviewed the related service information and note that while repair of the MLG lug parts is required for compliance (‘‘RC’’), certain steps are either labeled as ‘‘RC Exempt,’’ or contain technical instructions that are prefaced by ‘‘Refer to.’’ Paragraph (l)(4) of this AD and paragraph 3A., ‘‘General Information,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1 specify the actions labeled as ‘‘RC Exempt’’ are not required in order to show compliance to this AD. When the words ‘‘refer to’’ are used within an RC step and the operator has an accepted alternative procedure, the accepted alternative procedure can be used. When the words ‘‘in accordance with’’ are included in an RC step, the procedure in the Boeing document must be used. In addition, for proposals that provide an acceptable level of safety and have substantiating data, operators may apply for an AMOC using the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue. Request To Allow Installation of New, Overhauled, or Serviceable MLG DAL requested that operators be allowed to install a new, overhauled, or serviceable MLG instead of repairing a damaged lug and installing a new bushing if excessive wear, galling, or cracking is found during a detailed inspection/measurement of the MLG shock strut bushing. DAL stated that it would have to remove the damaged MLG and send it to the shop for repair, and it would be easier to install a new, overhauled, or serviceable MLG than to wait for the damaged MLG to be repaired. DAL explained that installing a new, overhauled, or serviceable MLG provides an equivalent level of safety because the intent of the proposed AD is to repair and install new bushings. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 67045 DAL observed that the damaged MLG would be repaired and then be ready for use on another airplane. We agree with the commenter’s request for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that replacement of an entire MLG assembly within the required compliance time satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g), provided that the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD, ‘‘Parts Installation Limitation,’’ are satisfied for that MLG assembly. Since the unsafe condition is also affected by rotability, we have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify that an MLG assembly cannot be installed on any airplane identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 airplanes have been accomplished on the MLG assembly. Paragraph (j) of this AD states that: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly on any airplane identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 airplanes pertaining to that MLG center door attachment, and identified as RC in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, have been accomplished on that MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly within the compliance times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. The actions for Group 3 airplanes apply to all airplanes for the requirement of this paragraph. In the proposed AD, paragraph (j) specified only an MLG center door assembly. Request for Clarification of Intent of Parts Installation Paragraph (j) DAL stated that paragraph (j), ‘‘Parts Installation Paragraph,’’ of the proposed AD was confusing because it stated that an operator may not install an MLG center door assembly on an airplane unless all actions identified as RC in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, are accomplished within the compliance times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. DAL observed that if an operator receives a spare door with an FAA Form 8130, ‘‘Authorized Release Certificate— Airworthiness Approval Tag,’’ attached, the tag might include the AD number but the number of flight cycles at the last inspection or total flight cycles of the door would not be provided. DAL suggested that operators ensure that the inspection and corrective actions are accomplished before the spare part is installed on the airplane. Therefore, if the flight cycles on the door are unknown, the operator would still be in E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 67046 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations compliance with the intent of the NPRM by inspecting the door before installation, and that it would be an equivalent level of safety that meets the intent of the NPRM. We appreciate the commenter’s concern and the opportunity to clarify the intent of the ‘‘Parts Installation Limitation’’ paragraph. The compliance times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, are in airplane flight cycles. There is no requirement in this AD or any statement in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, that it is necessary to determine the flight cycles accumulated on the MLG door assembly. The compliance times in this AD are based on flight cycles of the airplane instead of the MLG door assembly. Our strategy in addressing the unsafe condition is to first inspect all affected airplanes, and then to address future possible unsafe conditions with the requirements in the ‘‘Parts Installation Limitation’’ paragraph. We have not made any changes to this AD in regard to this issue. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES Request To Delay Issuance of Final Rule Until Service Information is Corrected American, subsequent to its earlier comments, requested that the final rule not be issued until discrepancies in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, are rectified and the instructions made clearer. The commenter stated that operators cannot comply with the requirements specified in the NPRM because of discrepancies in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. The commenter identified the following discrepancies. 1. BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, has quantities listed in Figures 1 and 2 that are double what is actually on the aircraft. Although there is a note that says ‘‘The QTY numbers shown below are the number or parts necessary for each airplane,’’ there is a Figure 1 for the left and a Figure 2 for the right. Each side has only one of each bolt, not two. Note that all of the other figures list the quantity of parts that is needed for only the left side or the right side, as applicable. Figures 1 and 2 are different than the other figures in this regard. 2. In Figure 5 (and Figures 6, 7, and 8), step 6 says to remove three laminated shims. The airplane only has two laminated shims. 3. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14) step #4 has you install and torque the bolt. However, the bolt in #4 has to go through the kept bracket and if you install the bolt first, you have to take it back out to install the bracket. Steps #4 and #5 should be reversed. 4. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14), step #6 states to install 3 each shims, but only 2 were removed, so do we install 3 each in the new configuration or just put 2 back? 5. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14), once we installed the forward bolt in step 4, with the correct washers installed, the bolt bottomed VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 247001 out in the barrel nut housing, since the bolt is too long. New bolts are slightly longer than old. The bolt needs another thick washer to fix the issue. The kits that are being delivered do not have an adequate amount of the necessary washers. Alaska also noted that Figure 13 and Figure 14 of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, depict view C with a pre-modification installation in lieu of a postmodification installation. We acknowledge the commenters’ concerns regarding the information in the service information that requires clarification. The amount of clarification needed would be overly complex for inclusion in this AD. We expect to work with Boeing to issue a global AMOC addressing any known errors as soon as possible. In addition, we have revised paragraph (h) of this AD, ‘‘Exceptions to Service Information Specifications,’’ by adding paragraph (h)(3) to provide operators with information regarding how to address any other issues, if needed. In light of the critical nature of the identified unsafe condition, we do not consider it warranted to delay the issuance of this final rule. When Boeing provides a revision to BSASB 737–52– 1170, R1, we will review it in consideration of an AMOC to this AD or may consider future rulemaking action. Request To Revise Compliance Time Specifications DAL noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD states that ‘‘For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where BSASB 737–52–1170, Revision 1, uses the phrase ‘the original issue date of this service bulletin’, this AD requires using ‘the effective date of this AD’.’’ DAL pointed out that in Table 4 of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, the compliance times for the Group 3 airplanes, states that the actions should be completed ‘‘Within 800 flight cycles after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin.’’ DAL asked if the AD effective date should also replace the Revision 1 date of the service information. We infer that DAL is requesting a revision to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to clarify that for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of the final rule that the effective date of the AD should be used instead of the original issue date or the Revision 1 date of the service information. We agree with the commenter’s request for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have re-designated paragraph (h) of the proposed AD as paragraph (h)(1) in this AD, and revised the text to state that for purposes of determining compliance with the PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 requirement of this AD, where BSASB 737–52–1170, Revision 1, uses the phrase ‘‘the original issue date of this service bulletin’’ or ‘‘the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin’’ this AD requires using ‘‘the effective date of this AD.’’ Observations Regarding Service Information American stated that BSASB 737–52– 1170, R1, is confusing and unnecessarily complex. American observed that BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, provides for 14 possible conditions, multiple options for corrective actions, 3 multi-page logic diagrams, and 10 different parts of instructions. American stated that the complexity could be simplified if the service information pointed the operator straight to the modification of the MLG center door assembly retention clip assemblies and, if needed, repair to the lugs and replacement of the bushings. American declared that the unnecessary complexity of the service bulletin invites non-compliance issues. We acknowledge the commenter’s concerns regarding BSASB 737–52– 1170, R1. The reason BSASB 737–52– 1170, R1, includes 14 possible conditions, multiple options for corrective actions, 3 multi-page logic diagrams, and 10 different parts of instructions is to provide a comprehensive set of procedures to address the unsafe condition that exists in the affected fleet of airplanes. We suggest that the commenter provide its comments regarding improvements to this document directly to Boeing. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue. Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM. We concur with the commenter. We have added paragraph (c)(5) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a ‘‘change in product’’ alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52– 1170, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the forward and aft MLG center door assembly attachments for loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip assemblies as applicable; and applicable on-condition actions. The service information also describes procedures for modification of 67047 the MLG center door assembly retention clip assemblies as an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 1,814 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS Action Labor cost Parts cost Inspection ............... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle. Cost per product $0 Cost on U.S. operators $170 per inspection cycle. $308,380 per inspection cycle. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR OPTIONAL TERMINATING ACTION Action Labor cost Modification ............ Up to 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 ............................................................ $2,900 Cost per product Up to $3,410. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Authority for This Rulemaking This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division. 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. ■ We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. According to the manufacturer some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES Parts cost VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 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): ■ 2018–26–06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39–19536; Docket No. FAA–2018–0393; Product Identifier 2018–NM–010–AD. (a) Effective Date This AD is effective February 1, 2019. (b) Affected ADs None. (c) Applicability This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD. E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 67048 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations (1) Airplanes in Group 1, and in Group 2, Configuration 1, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52– 1170, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017 (‘‘BSASB 737–52–1170, R1’’). (2) Airplanes in Group 2, Configuration 2, as identified in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. (3) Airplanes in Group 3, as identified in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, except where this service bulletin specifies the groups as line numbers 4275 through 6724 inclusive, and 6736, this AD specifies those groups as line number 4275 through any line number of an airplane with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated on or before the effective date of this AD. (4) All Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated after the effective date of this AD. (5) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a ‘‘change in product’’ alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. (d) Subject Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors. (e) Unsafe Condition This AD was prompted by reports of loose, worn, or missing attachment bolts for the main landing gear (MLG) center door assemblies. We are issuing this AD to address loose, missing, damaged, or bottomed-out attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip assemblies, which could result in departure of the center and inboard MLG door assemblies, subsequent damage to the main flap and horizontal stabilizer, and loss of control of the airplane. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES (f) Compliance Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. (g) Required Actions For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Tables 1 through 6, as applicable, of paragraph 1E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, do all applicable actions identified as ‘‘RC’’ (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. Replacement of an entire MLG assembly within the required compliance time satisfies the requirements of this paragraph, provided that the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD are satisfied for that MLG assembly. (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, uses the phrase ‘‘the original issue date of this service VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 247001 bulletin’’ or ‘‘the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin’’ this AD requires using ‘‘the effective date of this AD.’’ (2) Where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, limits use of Figures 3 and 4 to Group 2 airplanes, for the purposes of this AD, those figures apply to all airplane groups. (3) If any action(s) identified as RC in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, cannot be accomplished as specified therein, those action(s) must be accomplished using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. (i) Optional Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections Accomplishment of the modification of the MLG center door retention clip assemblies specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that MLG center door retention clip only. The requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD continue to apply. (j) Parts Installation Limitation As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly on any airplane identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 airplanes pertaining to that MLG center door attachment, and identified as RC in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, have been accomplished on that MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly within the compliance times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. The actions for Group 3 airplanes apply to all airplanes for the requirement of this paragraph. (k) Credit for Previous Actions This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52–1170, dated July 29, 2014. (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9ANM-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, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply. (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ‘‘RC Exempt,’’ then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures. (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator’s maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. (m) Related Information (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3527; email: alan.pohl@faa.gov. (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD. (n) Material Incorporated by Reference (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52–1170, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017. (ii) [Reserved] (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet https:// www.myboeingfleet.com. (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: https:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 18, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2018–28077 Filed 12–27–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 Examining the AD Docket [Docket No. FAA–2018–0641; Product Identifier 2018–NM–032–AD; Amendment 39–19519; AD 2018–25–08] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017–22– 07, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320–211,–212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. AD 2017–22–07 required repetitive inspections of the frame forks, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2017–22–07 also included optional modifications that constituted terminating action. This AD requires modifying certain forward and aft cargo compartment doors, and related investigative and corrective actions. This AD was prompted by an evaluation done by the design approval holder indicating that certain areas of certain cargo compartment doors are subject to widespread fatigue damage, and a determination was made that a modification of the frame forks must be done. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 1, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of January 2, 2018 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017). ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 Rond Point Emile Dewoitine, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 247001 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: account.airworth-eas@ airbus.com; internet: https:// www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 0641. You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 0641; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800–647–5527) is 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3223. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017–22–07, Amendment 39–19087 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017) (‘‘AD 2017–22– 07’’). AD 2017–22–07 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2018 (83 FR 38091). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation done by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and a determination was made that a modification of the frame forks must be accomplished. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections of the frame forks, and corrective actions if necessary, and to include optional modifications that constitute terminating action. The PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 67049 NPRM also proposed to require modifying certain forward and aft cargo compartment doors, and related investigative and corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to address cracks on the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors, which could lead to reduced structural integrity and failure of the cargo compartment door, possible decompression of the airplane, and injury to occupants. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018–0024, dated January 29, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, –214, –216, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. The MCAI states: During full scale fatigue test, cracks were found on frame forks and outer skin on forward and aft cargo doors. To improve the fatigue behaviour of the frame forks, Airbus introduced modification (mod) 22948 in production, and issued inspection Service Bulletin (SB) A320–52–1032 and mod SB A320–52–1042, both recommended. Since those actions were taken, further improved cargo compartment doors were introduced in production through Airbus mod 26213, on aeroplanes having [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0759 and up. In the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) study, it was determined that repetitive inspection are necessary for aft and forward cargo compartment doors on aeroplanes that are in pre-mod 26213 configuration. Failure to detect cracks would reduce the cargo door structural integrity. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cargo door failure, possibly resulting in decompression of the aeroplane and injury to occupants. To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A320–52–1171 to provide instructions for repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI). This SB was later revised to correct the list of affected cargo doors. Airbus also issued SB A320–52–1170, introducing a door modification which would allow terminating the repetitive SDI[s]. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016–0187 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017–22–07] to require repetitive SDI[s] of the affected cargo doors and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable repairs. That [EASA] AD also included reference to SB A320–52–1170 as optional terminating action. Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further investigations linked to the WFD analysis highlighted that, to meet the WFD requirements, it is necessary to require E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67043-67049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0393; Product Identifier 2018-NM-010-AD; Amendment
39-19536; AD 2018-26-06]
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 all The
Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of loose, worn, or
missing attachment bolts for the main landing gear (MLG) center door
assemblies. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the
forward and aft MLG center door assembly attachments for loose,
missing, damaged, or bottomed-out attachment bolts, and any wear to the
retention clip assemblies as applicable; and applicable on-condition
actions. This AD also provides an

[[Page 67044]]

optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 1,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0393.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0393; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is 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: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3527; email:
alan.pohl@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2018 (83 FR
21948). The NPRM was prompted by reports of loose, worn, or missing
attachment bolts for the MLG center door assemblies. The NPRM proposed
to require repetitive detailed inspections of the forward and aft MLG
center door assembly attachments for loose, missing, damaged, or
bottomed-out attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip
assemblies as applicable; and applicable on-condition actions. The NPRM
also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive
inspections.
We are issuing this AD to address loose, missing, damaged, or
bottomed-out attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip
assemblies, which could result in departure of the center and inboard
MLG door assemblies, subsequent damage to the main flap and horizontal
stabilizer, and loss of control of the airplane.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

Boeing and The Air Line Pilots Association, International, each
stated that it concurred with the intent of the NPRM.

Request for Changes to Service Information

Alaska Airlines (Alaska) requested that changes be made to Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1170, Revision 1, dated
December 19, 2017 (``BSASB 737-52-1170, R1''). Alaska noted that
operators cannot comply with the requirements specified in paragraph
(g) of the proposed AD in cases where BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, directs
the operator to inspect a Group 3 airplane using Figure 3 or Figure 4
of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, because those figures are not applicable to
Group 3 airplanes.
We agree with the commenter's observations concerning Figure 3 and
Figure 4 of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1. We contacted Boeing and have
determined that the actions for Group 2 airplanes are appropriate for
all airplanes to comply with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this
AD. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD, ``Exceptions to Service
Information Specifications,'' by adding paragraph (h)(2), which states
that ``Where BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, limits use of Figures 3 and 4 to
Group 2 airplanes, for the purposes of this AD, those figures apply to
all airplane groups.''

Request for Clarification of the Requirements of Paragraph (j) of the
Proposed AD

Alaska requested clarification of the requirements specified in
paragraph (j) of the proposed AD and clarification of which airplane
groups would be affected by these requirements. Alaska asked if ``all
actions for Group 3'' means that this paragraph is for Group 3
airplanes only or for all airplane groups. Alaska also noted that an
inspection of the ``door assembly'' implies an inspection of the door,
but BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, describes procedures for inspection of the
``door installation.''
We agree with the commenter's request and have revised paragraph
(j) of this AD as follows:

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly on any airplane identified
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD unless all actions
for Group 3 airplanes pertaining to that MLG center door attachment,
and identified as RC in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, have been accomplished on
that MLG assembly or MLG center door assembly within the compliance
times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1. The actions for
Group 3 airplanes apply to all airplanes for the requirement of this
paragraph.

Request To Include Identification Method for Post-Modification Door

American Airlines (American) requested that BSASB 737-52-1170, R1,
be revised to include an identifying stencil or placard that could be
placed on an affected MLG center door assembly once it has been
modified. The commenter stated that the MLG center door assembly is a
rotable part. However, neither the NPRM nor BSASB 737-52-1170, R1,
addresses the issue of a post-modification MLG center door assembly
being removed from an airplane and replaced with a pre-modification MLG
center door assembly.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern that BSASB 737-52-1170, R1,
does not address the rotability of an MLG center door assembly. We
addressed the issue of rotability in this AD in two ways. First, the
applicability in paragraph (c) of this AD includes all Model 737-600, -
700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, not just the
airplanes specified in the effectivity of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1.
Second, we added paragraph (j) of this AD, ``Parts Installation
Limitation''.
While marking or part marking might provide some benefit for
operator awareness and recordkeeping, the issue

[[Page 67045]]

of rotability is approached in different ways by different operators.
When there have been similar issues regarding rotable parts, operators
expressed a preference to not have a requirement to mark and/or part
mark, although operators may do this at their own discretion. We also
note that this AD addresses not only the MLG center door assembly but
also the attachments to the MLG strut assemblies. We have not changed
this AD in regard to this issue.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

Delta Air Lines (DAL) and SunExpress (SXS) requested that the
compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be
extended. SXS requested that the compliance time for the initial
inspection be extended from 12,000 total flight cycles to 20,000 total
flight cycles, or from 800 flight cycles after the effective date of
the proposed AD to 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of the
proposed AD, and that the interval for the repetitive inspection be
extended from 5,500 flight cycles to 6,600 flight cycles. SXS stated
that 41 airplanes in its fleet have exceeded 12,000 total flight
cycles, and it would have a short period of time to perform the
required inspection as described in BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, and it would
have to operate some airplanes a long time without the MLG shock strut
doors. SXS noted that performing operations without a MLG shock strut
door incurs a fuel burn penalty, which is approximately 0.77% more fuel
burned per flight.
DAL stated that the compliance time for the initial inspection
would require them to inspect approximately 80 airplanes in a 200-day
period, requiring them to accomplish the work for most of its airplanes
in the line environment, which increases the risk for an ``airplane on
ground'' situation if there is a finding on the MLG structure. DAL
noted that BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, does not provide relief for operators
when a crack or corrosion is found in the MLG lug after removal of the
bushing. For an MLG that requires re-work, DAL typically removes the
MLG, replaces it with another MLG, and sends the discrepant MLG to a
shop for repair. We infer that DAL is requesting that the compliance
time for the initial inspection be extended.
In addition, DAL pointed out that the procedures in BSASB 737-52-
1170, R1, would restrict an operator from dispatching an affected
airplane until corrective is taken to repair the MLG. DAL requested
that this situation be considered in the final rule by providing a
limited return to service. DAL stated that if several MLG lugs are
found with discrepancies, there is the potential of the operator
grounding airplanes outside of a heavy maintenance check to either
replace the MLG gear or go through its spare parts inventory.
We do not agree with the commenters' requests. We appreciate the
impact that the required actions and the associated compliance times
will have on operators. However, both the FAA and Boeing have
identified this issue as an unsafe condition, and the commenters have
not provided substantiating data for their proposals. In addition, a
limited return to service would not be appropriate for dispatching
airplanes with known cracking or corrosion. As SXS has noted, airplanes
may be operated with the MLG shock strut center and inner doors removed
until repairs can be made.
We have reviewed the related service information and note that
while repair of the MLG lug parts is required for compliance (``RC''),
certain steps are either labeled as ``RC Exempt,'' or contain technical
instructions that are prefaced by ``Refer to.'' Paragraph (l)(4) of
this AD and paragraph 3A., ``General Information,'' of BSASB 737-52-
1170, R1 specify the actions labeled as ``RC Exempt'' are not required
in order to show compliance to this AD. When the words ``refer to'' are
used within an RC step and the operator has an accepted alternative
procedure, the accepted alternative procedure can be used. When the
words ``in accordance with'' are included in an RC step, the procedure
in the Boeing document must be used. In addition, for proposals that
provide an acceptable level of safety and have substantiating data,
operators may apply for an AMOC using the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in regard to this
issue.

Request To Allow Installation of New, Overhauled, or Serviceable MLG

DAL requested that operators be allowed to install a new,
overhauled, or serviceable MLG instead of repairing a damaged lug and
installing a new bushing if excessive wear, galling, or cracking is
found during a detailed inspection/measurement of the MLG shock strut
bushing. DAL stated that it would have to remove the damaged MLG and
send it to the shop for repair, and it would be easier to install a
new, overhauled, or serviceable MLG than to wait for the damaged MLG to
be repaired. DAL explained that installing a new, overhauled, or
serviceable MLG provides an equivalent level of safety because the
intent of the proposed AD is to repair and install new bushings. DAL
observed that the damaged MLG would be repaired and then be ready for
use on another airplane.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by
the commenter. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that
replacement of an entire MLG assembly within the required compliance
time satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g), provided that the
requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD, ``Parts Installation
Limitation,'' are satisfied for that MLG assembly.
Since the unsafe condition is also affected by rotability, we have
revised paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify that an MLG assembly cannot
be installed on any airplane identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(4) of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 airplanes have been
accomplished on the MLG assembly. Paragraph (j) of this AD states that:

In the proposed AD, paragraph (j) specified only an MLG center door
assembly.

Request for Clarification of Intent of Parts Installation Paragraph (j)

DAL stated that paragraph (j), ``Parts Installation Paragraph,'' of
the proposed AD was confusing because it stated that an operator may
not install an MLG center door assembly on an airplane unless all
actions identified as RC in BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, are accomplished
within the compliance times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as
applicable, of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of BSASB 737-52-1170,
R1. DAL observed that if an operator receives a spare door with an FAA
Form 8130, ``Authorized Release Certificate--Airworthiness Approval
Tag,'' attached, the tag might include the AD number but the number of
flight cycles at the last inspection or total flight cycles of the door
would not be provided. DAL suggested that operators ensure that the
inspection and corrective actions are accomplished before the spare
part is installed on the airplane. Therefore, if the flight cycles on
the door are unknown, the operator would still be in

[[Page 67046]]

compliance with the intent of the NPRM by inspecting the door before
installation, and that it would be an equivalent level of safety that
meets the intent of the NPRM.
We appreciate the commenter's concern and the opportunity to
clarify the intent of the ``Parts Installation Limitation'' paragraph.
The compliance times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, are in
airplane flight cycles. There is no requirement in this AD or any
statement in BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, that it is necessary to determine
the flight cycles accumulated on the MLG door assembly. The compliance
times in this AD are based on flight cycles of the airplane instead of
the MLG door assembly. Our strategy in addressing the unsafe condition
is to first inspect all affected airplanes, and then to address future
possible unsafe conditions with the requirements in the ``Parts
Installation Limitation'' paragraph.
We have not made any changes to this AD in regard to this issue.

Request To Delay Issuance of Final Rule Until Service Information is
Corrected

American, subsequent to its earlier comments, requested that the
final rule not be issued until discrepancies in BSASB 737-52-1170, R1,
are rectified and the instructions made clearer. The commenter stated
that operators cannot comply with the requirements specified in the
NPRM because of discrepancies in BSASB 737-52-1170, R1. The commenter
identified the following discrepancies.

1. BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, has quantities listed in Figures 1 and
2 that are double what is actually on the aircraft. Although there
is a note that says ``The QTY numbers shown below are the number or
parts necessary for each airplane,'' there is a Figure 1 for the
left and a Figure 2 for the right. Each side has only one of each
bolt, not two. Note that all of the other figures list the quantity
of parts that is needed for only the left side or the right side, as
applicable. Figures 1 and 2 are different than the other figures in
this regard.
2. In Figure 5 (and Figures 6, 7, and 8), step 6 says to remove
three laminated shims. The airplane only has two laminated shims.
3. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14) step #4 has you install and
torque the bolt. However, the bolt in #4 has to go through the kept
bracket and if you install the bolt first, you have to take it back
out to install the bracket. Steps #4 and #5 should be reversed.
4. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14), step #6 states to install 3
each shims, but only 2 were removed, so do we install 3 each in the
new configuration or just put 2 back?
5. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14), once we installed the forward
bolt in step 4, with the correct washers installed, the bolt
bottomed out in the barrel nut housing, since the bolt is too long.
New bolts are slightly longer than old. The bolt needs another thick
washer to fix the issue. The kits that are being delivered do not
have an adequate amount of the necessary washers.

Alaska also noted that Figure 13 and Figure 14 of BSASB 737-52-
1170, R1, depict view C with a pre-modification installation in lieu of
a post-modification installation.
We acknowledge the commenters' concerns regarding the information
in the service information that requires clarification. The amount of
clarification needed would be overly complex for inclusion in this AD.
We expect to work with Boeing to issue a global AMOC addressing any
known errors as soon as possible. In addition, we have revised
paragraph (h) of this AD, ``Exceptions to Service Information
Specifications,'' by adding paragraph (h)(3) to provide operators with
information regarding how to address any other issues, if needed.
In light of the critical nature of the identified unsafe condition,
we do not consider it warranted to delay the issuance of this final
rule. When Boeing provides a revision to BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, we will
review it in consideration of an AMOC to this AD or may consider future
rulemaking action.

Request To Revise Compliance Time Specifications

DAL noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD states that ``For
purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD:
Where BSASB 737-52-1170, Revision 1, uses the phrase `the original
issue date of this service bulletin', this AD requires using `the
effective date of this AD'.'' DAL pointed out that in Table 4 of BSASB
737-52-1170, R1, the compliance times for the Group 3 airplanes, states
that the actions should be completed ``Within 800 flight cycles after
the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin.'' DAL asked if the AD
effective date should also replace the Revision 1 date of the service
information. We infer that DAL is requesting a revision to paragraph
(h) of the proposed AD to clarify that for purposes of determining
compliance with the requirements of the final rule that the effective
date of the AD should be used instead of the original issue date or the
Revision 1 date of the service information.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by
the commenter. We have re-designated paragraph (h) of the proposed AD
as paragraph (h)(1) in this AD, and revised the text to state that for
purposes of determining compliance with the requirement of this AD,
where BSASB 737-52-1170, Revision 1, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of this service bulletin'' or ``the Revision 1 date of this
service bulletin'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of this
AD.''

Observations Regarding Service Information

American stated that BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, is confusing and
unnecessarily complex. American observed that BSASB 737-52-1170, R1,
provides for 14 possible conditions, multiple options for corrective
actions, 3 multi-page logic diagrams, and 10 different parts of
instructions. American stated that the complexity could be simplified
if the service information pointed the operator straight to the
modification of the MLG center door assembly retention clip assemblies
and, if needed, repair to the lugs and replacement of the bushings.
American declared that the unnecessary complexity of the service
bulletin invites non-compliance issues.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns regarding BSASB 737-52-
1170, R1. The reason BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, includes 14 possible
conditions, multiple options for corrective actions, 3 multi-page logic
diagrams, and 10 different parts of instructions is to provide a
comprehensive set of procedures to address the unsafe condition that
exists in the affected fleet of airplanes. We suggest that the
commenter provide its comments regarding improvements to this document
directly to Boeing. We have not changed this AD in regard to this
issue.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the ability to
accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have added paragraph (c)(5) to
this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the
ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a
``change in product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval
request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
39.17.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described

[[Page 67047]]

previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1170,
Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017. The service information describes
procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the forward and aft
MLG center door assembly attachments for loose, missing, damaged, or
bottomed-out attachment bolts, and any wear to the retention clip
assemblies as applicable; and applicable on-condition actions. The
service information also describes procedures for modification of the
MLG center door assembly retention clip assemblies as an optional
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1,814 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................. 2 work-hours x $85 per $0 $170 per inspection $308,380 per
hour = $170 per cycle. inspection cycle.
inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Costs for Optional Terminating Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification..................... Up to 6 work-hours x $85 $2,900 Up to $3,410.
per hour = $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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):

2018-26-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19536; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0393; Product Identifier 2018-NM-010-AD.

(a) Effective Date

This AD is effective February 1, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this
AD.

[[Page 67048]]

(1) Airplanes in Group 1, and in Group 2, Configuration 1, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1170,
Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017 (``BSASB 737-52-1170, R1'').
(2) Airplanes in Group 2, Configuration 2, as identified in
BSASB 737-52-1170, R1.
(3) Airplanes in Group 3, as identified in BSASB 737-52-1170,
R1, except where this service bulletin specifies the groups as line
numbers 4275 through 6724 inclusive, and 6736, this AD specifies
those groups as line number 4275 through any line number of an
airplane with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an
original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated on or before the
effective date of this AD.
(4) All Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an
original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated after the
effective date of this AD.
(5) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of loose, worn, or missing
attachment bolts for the main landing gear (MLG) center door
assemblies. We are issuing this AD to address loose, missing,
damaged, or bottomed-out attachment bolts, and any wear to the
retention clip assemblies, which could result in departure of the
center and inboard MLG door assemblies, subsequent damage to the
main flap and horizontal stabilizer, and loss of control of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3)
of this AD: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in Tables 1 through 6, as applicable, of
paragraph 1E., ``Compliance,'' of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, do all
applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance)
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB
737-52-1170, R1. Replacement of an entire MLG assembly within the
required compliance time satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph, provided that the requirements of paragraph (j) of this
AD are satisfied for that MLG assembly.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, uses the phrase ``the
original issue date of this service bulletin'' or ``the Revision 1
date of this service bulletin'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD.''
(2) Where BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, limits use of Figures 3 and 4
to Group 2 airplanes, for the purposes of this AD, those figures
apply to all airplane groups.
(3) If any action(s) identified as RC in BSASB 737-52-1170, R1,
cannot be accomplished as specified therein, those action(s) must be
accomplished using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(i) Optional Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

Accomplishment of the modification of the MLG center door
retention clip assemblies specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of BSASB 737-52-1170, R1, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that MLG center
door retention clip only. The requirements of paragraph (j) of this
AD continue to apply.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-52-1170, dated July 29, 2014.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(m) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3527;
email: alan.pohl@faa.gov.
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1170,
Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

[[Page 67049]]

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 18, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-28077 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.