Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, 16382-16386 [R1-2019-07587]

Download as PDF 16382 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations In addition to replacing ‘‘midget’’ with ‘‘petite’’ or removing ‘‘midget,’’ AMS is also removing dual nomenclature in U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Lima Beans, U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Mushrooms, and U.S. Standards for Grades of Green Olives. More recently developed standards use a single term, such as ‘‘U.S. Grade A’’ or ‘‘U.S. Grade B,’’ to describe each level of quality within a grade standard. Older grade standards used dual nomenclature, such as ‘‘U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy,’’ ‘‘U.S. U.S. standards for grades of Effective date Other proposed revisions Change level of quality designations to single terms in the Grades of canned lima beans and Color sections. Correct CFR citation for standard of identity to 21 CFR 155.200 in the Identity section. Replace Processed Products information and address with ‘‘USDA Headquarters in Washington, DC’’ in the General section. Change level of quality designations to single terms in the Grades of canned mushrooms section. Correct CFR citation for standard of identity to 21 CFR 155.200 in the Product description section. Change level of quality designations to single terms in the Grades of green olives and Uniformity of size sections and Tables IV and V in the Absence of defects section. Change ‘‘D’’ to ‘‘Sstd’’ in the Score sheet for green olives section. Change the title of Table III from ‘‘Recommended Pickle Ingredients All Styles Except Relish’’ to ‘‘Recommended Minimum Quantity of Pickle Ingredients All Styles Except Relish.’’ 3/20/60 Replace with ‘‘Petite’’ in Table II in Sizes of canned lima beans section. Canned Mushrooms 4/7/62 Replace with ‘‘petite’’ in the Sizes of canned mushrooms in the styles of whole and buttons section. Green Olives ............ 9/8/67 Remove from Table I in the Sizes of whole style green olives section. Pickles ..................... 4/22/91 Replace with ‘‘Petite’’ in Table II in the Sizes of whole pickles section and Table VI in the Requirements for grade section. Comments On August 13, 2018, AMS published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 39917) soliciting comments on replacing or removing the term ‘‘midget’’ from each of the grade standards identified in this document, as well as replacing the two-term grading system with a single term to describe each quality level in U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Lima Beans, U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Mushrooms, and U.S. Standards for Grades of Green Olives. Nine comments were received from the general public by the end of the public comment period on October 12, 2018. One comment favored replacing or removing the term ‘‘midget,’’ but supported using ‘‘extra small’’ instead of ‘‘petite’’ for pickles since the other sizes are small, medium, large, and extralarge. The term ‘‘petite’’ was proposed by the industry because there are three lesser sizes before the ‘‘small’’ size designation: midget, small gherkin, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:46 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 throughout the standards, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) references where applicable, and to remove obsolete addresses for viewing or obtaining color standards. Information on obtaining color standards is available in the Fresh and Processed Equipment Catalog on the AMS website at https:// www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/ how-purchase-equipment-and-visualaids. These revisions will result in a consistent format across grade standards (75 FR 43141). The following table summarizes the changes made by AMS: Remove or replace ‘‘Midget’’ Canned Lima Beans The revisions provide a common language for trade and better reflect the current marketing of fruits and vegetables. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard,’’ or ‘‘U.S. Grade B or U.S. Choice,’’ and ‘‘U.S. Grade C or U.S. Standard,’’ to describe the same level of quality. The terms ‘‘U.S. Fancy,’’ ‘‘U.S. Extra Standard,’’ ‘‘U.S. Choice,’’ and ‘‘U.S. Standard’’ will be removed and the terms ‘‘U.S. Grade A,’’ ‘‘U.S. Grade B,’’ and ‘‘U.S. Grade C’’ will be used exclusively. Finally, AMS is making editorial changes to these grade standards to update the name of a table to better reflect its content, a grade designation in a scoresheet to align with language used large gherkin. AMS is revising the standard for pickles with the term ‘‘petite.’’ One comment favored removing ‘‘midget’’ but did not support addressing dual nomenclature in this notice. AMS will address dual nomenclature at the same time ‘‘midget’’ is replaced or removed since these are minor non-controversial changes that will update the standards to more accurately represent today’s marketing practices and addressing both is more efficient than undertaking separate rulemakings on each issue. One comment was outside the scope of this revision to U.S. grade standards. The remaining six comments favored replacing or removing the term ‘‘midget’’ in the grade standards. Based on the information gathered, AMS is replacing or removing ‘‘midget,’’ removing dual nomenclature, and making editorial changes to the aforementioned U.S. Standards for Grades. These revisions bring the grade standards in line with other recently amended standards and current terminology, and update the standards PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 to more accurately represent today’s marketing practices. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. Dated: April 16, 2019. Bruce Summers, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 2019–07899 Filed 4–18–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–02–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2018–0899; Product Identifier 2018–NM–099–AD; Amendment 39–19615; AD 2019–07–04] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes Editorial Note: Rule document 2019–07587 was originally published on pages 15949 through 15952 in the issue of Wednesday, April 17, 2019. In that publication, on page 15951, in the title of the Airworthiness E:\FR\FM\19APR1.SGM 19APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Directive, ‘‘–04’’ was inadvertently left out. The corrected document is republished in its entirety. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the inner skin of the lap splices, at the lower fastener row, is subject to scratch cracks that may interact with widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires a general visual inspection (GVI) of certain lap splice inspection areas for any repair common to the fuselage skin lap splice dual frequency eddy current (DFEC) inspection areas, repetitive DFEC inspections of certain lap splice inner skins for any crack, and applicable oncondition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD is effective May 22, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 22, 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; phone: 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– 0899. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: 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– 0899; 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:46 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5224; fax: 562–627– 5210; email: david.truong@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 certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018 (83 FR 51887). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the inner skin of the lap splices, at the lower fastener row, is subject to scratch cracks that may interact with WFD. The NPRM proposed to require a general visual inspection of certain lap splice inspection areas for any repair common to the fuselage skin lap splice inspection areas, repetitive DFEC inspections of a certain lap splice inner skin for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address scratches that can grow into scratch cracks, which could interact with multisite damage (MSD) fastener hole fatigue cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in accelerated crack growth rate, which could result in reduced structural integrity 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. Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD. We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE 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. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 16383 Request for Clarification of the Affected Airplanes Boeing requested that we clarify the affected airplanes in the NPRM. Boeing pointed out that the SUMMARY of the NPRM currently states ‘‘for certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes,’’ and requested that we change the SUMMARY of the NPRM to state ‘‘for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes.’’ We acknowledge this typographical error. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, specifies ‘‘all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes,’’ and our intent was to match the service information. We have revised the SUMMARY and paragraph (c)(1) of this AD accordingly. Request To Revise the Safety Issue Boeing requested that we clarify the nature of the safety issue. Boeing pointed out that the SUMMARY of the NPRM suggests that the safety issue is limited to WFD. Boeing also mentioned that lap splice WFD for the Model 757 fleet is already addressed by AD 2018– 18–07, Amendment 39–19386 (83 FR 45037, September 5, 2018) (‘‘AD 2018– 18–07’’). Boeing specified that the safety issue that the NPRM is mitigating is the potential for interaction between MSD and scratch cracks on the inner skin of the lap splices. Boeing requested that we revise the ‘‘prompted by’’ statement in the SUMMARY of the NPRM to specify ‘‘. . . at the lower fastener row is subject to scratch cracks that may interact with WFD.’’ We acknowledge the commenter’s concern. As written, the SUMMARY of the NPRM can be misconstrued to specify duplicate actions (lap splice WFD) already addressed by AD 2018– 18–07. The intent of this AD action is to address the potential for interaction between MSD and scratch cracks on the inner skin of the lap splices. Therefore, we have revised the SUMMARY and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly. Request for Clarification of the GVI Inspection Area Boeing requested that we clarify the GVI inspection area. Boeing mentioned that the SUMMARY and ‘‘Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51’’ section of the NPRM each describe a GVI common to the fuselage skin lap splice inspection areas. Boeing pointed out that the wording seems confusing and could be perceived as a circular description (i.e., that the inspection area is common to the inspection area). Boeing also pointed out that there is no mention of the commonality of the E:\FR\FM\19APR1.SGM 19APR1 16384 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations DFEC inspection areas and the GVI inspection areas. We agree with the commenter’s request for the reasons provided. We have revised the SUMMARY and ‘‘Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51’’ section of this AD accordingly. Request for Clarification of the Affected Inspection Area Boeing requested that we clarify the affected inspection area. Boeing mentioned that the SUMMARY of the NPRM states ‘‘. . . DFEC inspections of a certain lap splice inner skin. . . .’’ Boeing pointed out that this statement suggests that only one skin panel is affected. Boeing requested that we revise the SUMMARY of the NPRM to state ‘‘. . . DFEC inspections of certain lap splice inner skins. . . .’’ We agree with the commenter’s request for the reasons provided. We have revised the SUMMARY of this AD accordingly. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES Request To Clarify That the Inspections Are Not Limited to Lap Splices at Stringer (S) 14 Boeing requested that we clarify that the inspections are not limited to lap splices at S–14. Boeing mentioned that the ‘‘Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51’’ section of the NPRM describes the service information as procedures for ‘‘. . . repetitive DFEC inspections of the S–14 lap splice inner skin for any crack. . . .’’ Boeing pointed out that the description does not mention any of the other lap splice stringer locations where the inspections are required. Boeing requested that we revise the description to specify ‘‘. . . repetitive DFEC inspections of certain lap splice inner skins for any crack. . . .’’ We agree with the commenter’s request for the reasons provided. We have revised the ‘‘Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51’’ section of this AD accordingly. Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance of the NPRM Boeing requested that we clarify the Costs of Compliance of the NPRM. Boeing mentioned that the NPRM specified 451 airplanes of U.S. registry. Boing specified that its records show there to be 561 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by the NPRM. Boeing also pointed out that the difference in affected airplanes significantly increases the overall costs to the U.S. registered Model 757 fleet. We agree that Boeing records account for U.S. registered airplanes that the FAA did not include in the NPRM, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:46 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 that this number may be a more accurate representation of the U.S. registered airplanes. We did not originally include airplanes in our cost estimate that are in storage or not currently active. We have updated the Costs of Compliance section of this AD to reflect the specific number of U.S. registered airplanes and the revised cost on U.S. operators. Request To Include Required for Compliance (RC) Language Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to include RC language. Boeing mentioned that this change would clarify which actions are mandated. We agree that clarification is necessary, however, we disagree with the request to include RC language in paragraph (i) of this AD. As noted in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, if an RB is mandated by an AD, then all applicable requirements specified in the RB must be done. We did not include RC language because this AD requires accomplishment of all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Exclude Airplanes With Certain Modifications FedEx and VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (MAE) Inc. requested that we revise the NPRM to specify that inspections, methods, and compliance times regarding certain lap splices specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, be omitted for the FedEx fleet of Model 757–200 airplanes. FedEx mentioned that its fleet has been modified using certain VT MAE Inc. supplemental type certificates (STCs), and is no longer configured as passenger airplanes. FedEx pointed out that its Model 757–200 fleet is identified as Groups 1, 4, and 5 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. VT MAE Inc. pointed out that because of the change in configuration related to the VT MAE Inc. STCs, certain lap splice inspection areas have been removed and those airplanes are unable to fully comply with the inspection procedures specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. VT MAE Inc. proposed certain exceptions to the service information in the final rule. The proposed exceptions are for the lap splice inspections affected by the change in configuration related to the VT MAE Inc. STCs. FedEx requested that, in lieu of requesting an PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 AMOC after publication, we include the exceptions proposed by VT MAE Inc. in the final rule. We acknowledge the commenters’ remarks, however, we disagree with the request to include exceptions in this final rule that are specific to certain airplanes operated by FedEx. There are many different airplane configurations across multiple operators, and ADs cannot accommodate all possible configurations. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC that addresses the VT MAE Inc. STCs, if appropriate data are submitted to substantiate that the method would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard. 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 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 Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. This service information describes procedures for a GVI of certain lap splice inspection areas for any repair common to the fuselage skin lap splice DFEC inspection areas, repetitive DFEC inspections of certain lap splice inner skins for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. 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 561 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: E:\FR\FM\19APR1.SGM 19APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 16385 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS Action Labor cost General visual inspection ....... Up to 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $510. Up to 124 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $10,540 per inspection cycle. Repetitive DFEC inspections We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. 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. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:46 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 Parts cost Cost per product $0 Up to $510 ............................. Up to $286,110. 0 Up to $10,540 per inspection cycle. Up to $5,912,940 per inspection cycle. (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 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): ■ 2019–07–04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39–19615; Docket No. FAA–2018–0899; Product Identifier 2018–NM–099–AD. (a) Effective Date This AD is effective May 22, 2019. (b) Affected ADs None. (c) Applicability (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any category. (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE 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 53, Fuselage. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Cost on U.S. operators Sfmt 4700 (e) Unsafe Condition This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the inner skin of the lap splices, at the lower fastener row, is subject to scratch cracks that may interact with widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to address scratches that can grow into scratch cracks, which could interact with multi-site damage (MSD) fastener hole fatigue cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in accelerated crack growth rate, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. (f) Compliance Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. (g) Required Actions Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the ‘‘Compliance’’ paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–53A0111, dated May 21, 2018, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, uses the phrase ‘‘the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB,’’ this AD requires using ‘‘the effective date of this AD.’’ (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for alternative inspections or repair instructions, this AD requires alternative inspection or repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. (3) Inspections performed in accordance with Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, are not necessary in areas where existing FAA approved repairs cover the affected inspection areas; provided the outermost repair doubler extends a minimum of three rows of fasteners above and below the E:\FR\FM\19APR1.SGM 19APR1 16386 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2019 / Rules and Regulations original group of lap splice fasteners subject to the inspection. Damage tolerance inspections specified for existing repairs must continue. Inspections outside of the repaired boundaries are still required as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9ANM-LAACO-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, Los Angeles 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. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES (j) Related Information (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627– 5224; fax: 562–627–5210; email: david.truong@faa.gov. (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD. (k) 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 Alert Requirements Bulletin 757–53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. (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; phone: 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:46 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 8, 2019. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. R1–2019–07587 Filed 4–18–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301–00–D DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2018–0903; Product Identifier 2018–NM–113–AD; Amendment 39–19616; AD 2019–07–05] 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) 2016–19– 14, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and 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 2016–19–14 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. Since we issued AD 2016–19– 14, we have determined that the unsafe condition may exist on additional airplanes. This AD continues to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. This AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD is effective May 24, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 24, 2019. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office— EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email account.airwortheas@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– 0903. 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– 0903; 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 2016–19–14, Amendment 39–18663 (81 FR 71602, October 18, 2016) (‘‘AD 2016–19–14’’). AD 2016–19–14 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and 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 November 5, 2018 (83 FR 55299). Since we issued AD 2016–19– 14, we have determined that the unsafe condition may exist on additional airplanes. This AD continues to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. This AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to address reading difficulties of flightcritical information displayed to the flightcrew during a critical phase of flight, such as an approach or takeoff, which could result in loss of airplane E:\FR\FM\19APR1.SGM 19APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16382-16386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: R1-2019-07587]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0899; Product Identifier 2018-NM-099-AD; Amendment 
39-19615; AD 2019-07-04]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

    Editorial Note: Rule document 2019-07587 was originally 
published on pages 15949 through 15952 in the issue of Wednesday, 
April 17, 2019. In that publication, on page 15951, in the title of 
the Airworthiness

[[Page 16383]]

Directive, ``-04'' was inadvertently left out. The corrected 
document is republished in its entirety.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 
Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an 
evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the 
inner skin of the lap splices, at the lower fastener row, is subject to 
scratch cracks that may interact with widespread fatigue damage (WFD). 
This AD requires a general visual inspection (GVI) of certain lap 
splice inspection areas for any repair common to the fuselage skin lap 
splice dual frequency eddy current (DFEC) inspection areas, repetitive 
DFEC inspections of certain lap splice inner skins for any crack, and 
applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the 
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 22, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 22, 
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; phone: 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-
0899.

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-
0899; 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: David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount 
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

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 certain The Boeing Company 
Model 757 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on 
October 15, 2018 (83 FR 51887). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation 
by the DAH indicating that the inner skin of the lap splices, at the 
lower fastener row, is subject to scratch cracks that may interact with 
WFD. The NPRM proposed to require a general visual inspection of 
certain lap splice inspection areas for any repair common to the 
fuselage skin lap splice inspection areas, repetitive DFEC inspections 
of a certain lap splice inner skin for any crack, and applicable on-
condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to address scratches that can grow into 
scratch cracks, which could interact with multi-site damage (MSD) 
fastener hole fatigue cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could 
result in accelerated crack growth rate, which could result in reduced 
structural integrity 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.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental 
Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified 
in the proposed AD.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of 
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph 
(c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not 
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. 
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE 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.

Request for Clarification of the Affected Airplanes

    Boeing requested that we clarify the affected airplanes in the 
NPRM. Boeing pointed out that the SUMMARY of the NPRM currently states 
``for certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes,'' and requested 
that we change the SUMMARY of the NPRM to state ``for all The Boeing 
Company Model 757 airplanes.''
    We acknowledge this typographical error. Boeing Alert Requirements 
Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, specifies ``all The Boeing 
Company Model 757 airplanes,'' and our intent was to match the service 
information. We have revised the SUMMARY and paragraph (c)(1) of this 
AD accordingly.

Request To Revise the Safety Issue

    Boeing requested that we clarify the nature of the safety issue. 
Boeing pointed out that the SUMMARY of the NPRM suggests that the 
safety issue is limited to WFD. Boeing also mentioned that lap splice 
WFD for the Model 757 fleet is already addressed by AD 2018-18-07, 
Amendment 39-19386 (83 FR 45037, September 5, 2018) (``AD 2018-18-
07''). Boeing specified that the safety issue that the NPRM is 
mitigating is the potential for interaction between MSD and scratch 
cracks on the inner skin of the lap splices. Boeing requested that we 
revise the ``prompted by'' statement in the SUMMARY of the NPRM to 
specify ``. . . at the lower fastener row is subject to scratch cracks 
that may interact with WFD.''
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern. As written, the SUMMARY of 
the NPRM can be misconstrued to specify duplicate actions (lap splice 
WFD) already addressed by AD 2018-18-07. The intent of this AD action 
is to address the potential for interaction between MSD and scratch 
cracks on the inner skin of the lap splices. Therefore, we have revised 
the SUMMARY and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly.

Request for Clarification of the GVI Inspection Area

    Boeing requested that we clarify the GVI inspection area. Boeing 
mentioned that the SUMMARY and ``Related Service Information Under 1 
CFR part 51'' section of the NPRM each describe a GVI common to the 
fuselage skin lap splice inspection areas. Boeing pointed out that the 
wording seems confusing and could be perceived as a circular 
description (i.e., that the inspection area is common to the inspection 
area). Boeing also pointed out that there is no mention of the 
commonality of the

[[Page 16384]]

DFEC inspection areas and the GVI inspection areas.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided. We 
have revised the SUMMARY and ``Related Service Information Under 1 CFR 
part 51'' section of this AD accordingly.

Request for Clarification of the Affected Inspection Area

    Boeing requested that we clarify the affected inspection area. 
Boeing mentioned that the SUMMARY of the NPRM states ``. . . DFEC 
inspections of a certain lap splice inner skin. . . .'' Boeing pointed 
out that this statement suggests that only one skin panel is affected. 
Boeing requested that we revise the SUMMARY of the NPRM to state ``. . 
. DFEC inspections of certain lap splice inner skins. . . .''
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided. We 
have revised the SUMMARY of this AD accordingly.

Request To Clarify That the Inspections Are Not Limited to Lap Splices 
at Stringer (S) 14

    Boeing requested that we clarify that the inspections are not 
limited to lap splices at S-14. Boeing mentioned that the ``Related 
Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51'' section of the NPRM describes 
the service information as procedures for ``. . . repetitive DFEC 
inspections of the S-14 lap splice inner skin for any crack. . . .'' 
Boeing pointed out that the description does not mention any of the 
other lap splice stringer locations where the inspections are required. 
Boeing requested that we revise the description to specify ``. . . 
repetitive DFEC inspections of certain lap splice inner skins for any 
crack. . . .''
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided. We 
have revised the ``Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51'' 
section of this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance of the NPRM

    Boeing requested that we clarify the Costs of Compliance of the 
NPRM. Boeing mentioned that the NPRM specified 451 airplanes of U.S. 
registry. Boing specified that its records show there to be 561 
airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by the NPRM. Boeing 
also pointed out that the difference in affected airplanes 
significantly increases the overall costs to the U.S. registered Model 
757 fleet.
    We agree that Boeing records account for U.S. registered airplanes 
that the FAA did not include in the NPRM, and that this number may be a 
more accurate representation of the U.S. registered airplanes. We did 
not originally include airplanes in our cost estimate that are in 
storage or not currently active. We have updated the Costs of 
Compliance section of this AD to reflect the specific number of U.S. 
registered airplanes and the revised cost on U.S. operators.

Request To Include Required for Compliance (RC) Language

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to 
include RC language. Boeing mentioned that this change would clarify 
which actions are mandated.
    We agree that clarification is necessary, however, we disagree with 
the request to include RC language in paragraph (i) of this AD. As 
noted in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 
21, 2018, if an RB is mandated by an AD, then all applicable 
requirements specified in the RB must be done. We did not include RC 
language because this AD requires accomplishment of all the actions 
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 
Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. Therefore, we 
have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Exclude Airplanes With Certain Modifications

    FedEx and VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (MAE) Inc. requested that 
we revise the NPRM to specify that inspections, methods, and compliance 
times regarding certain lap splices specified in Boeing Alert 
Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, be omitted 
for the FedEx fleet of Model 757-200 airplanes. FedEx mentioned that 
its fleet has been modified using certain VT MAE Inc. supplemental type 
certificates (STCs), and is no longer configured as passenger 
airplanes. FedEx pointed out that its Model 757-200 fleet is identified 
as Groups 1, 4, and 5 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 
RB, dated May 21, 2018. VT MAE Inc. pointed out that because of the 
change in configuration related to the VT MAE Inc. STCs, certain lap 
splice inspection areas have been removed and those airplanes are 
unable to fully comply with the inspection procedures specified in 
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. 
VT MAE Inc. proposed certain exceptions to the service information in 
the final rule. The proposed exceptions are for the lap splice 
inspections affected by the change in configuration related to the VT 
MAE Inc. STCs. FedEx requested that, in lieu of requesting an AMOC 
after publication, we include the exceptions proposed by VT MAE Inc. in 
the final rule.
    We acknowledge the commenters' remarks, however, we disagree with 
the request to include exceptions in this final rule that are specific 
to certain airplanes operated by FedEx. There are many different 
airplane configurations across multiple operators, and ADs cannot 
accommodate all possible configurations. However, under the provisions 
of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of 
an AMOC that addresses the VT MAE Inc. STCs, if appropriate data are 
submitted to substantiate that the method would provide an acceptable 
level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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 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 Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, 
dated May 21, 2018. This service information describes procedures for a 
GVI of certain lap splice inspection areas for any repair common to the 
fuselage skin lap splice DFEC inspection areas, repetitive DFEC 
inspections of certain lap splice inner skins for any crack, and 
applicable on-condition actions. 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 561 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

[[Page 16385]]



                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General visual inspection........  Up to 6 work-hours               $0  Up to $510.........  Up to $286,110.
                                    x $85 per hour =
                                    up to $510.
Repetitive DFEC inspections......  Up to 124 work-                   0  Up to $10,540 per    Up to $5,912,940
                                    hours x $85 per                      inspection cycle.    per inspection
                                    hour = up to                                              cycle.
                                    $10,540 per
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

2019-07-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19615; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0899; Product Identifier 2018-NM-099-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 22, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -
200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any 
category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 
ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions 
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE 
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 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval 
holder (DAH) indicating that the inner skin of the lap splices, at 
the lower fastener row, is subject to scratch cracks that may 
interact with widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this 
AD to address scratches that can grow into scratch cracks, which 
could interact with multi-site damage (MSD) fastener hole fatigue 
cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in 
accelerated crack growth rate, which could result in reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the 
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing 
Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, do 
all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 
757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Guidance for accomplishing 
the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 757-53A0111, dated May 21, 2018, which is referred to in 
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 
2018.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements 
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, 
dated May 21, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of 
Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the 
effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, 
dated May 21, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for alternative 
inspections or repair instructions, this AD requires alternative 
inspection or repair before further flight using a method approved 
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this 
AD.
    (3) Inspections performed in accordance with Boeing Alert 
Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, are not 
necessary in areas where existing FAA approved repairs cover the 
affected inspection areas; provided the outermost repair doubler 
extends a minimum of three rows of fasteners above and below the

[[Page 16386]]

original group of lap splice fasteners subject to the inspection. 
Damage tolerance inspections specified for existing repairs must 
continue. Inspections outside of the repaired boundaries are still 
required as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-
53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (j)(1) of this AD. Information 
may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (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, Los Angeles 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Truong, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5224; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not 
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in 
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) 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 Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 
21, 2018.
    (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; phone: 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.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 8, 2019.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. R1-2019-07587 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.