Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46932-46935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1322; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-211-AD; 
Amendment 39-17141; AD 2012-15-12]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 
Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of 
cracks of the underwing longeron fittings in the wing center section. 
This AD requires repetitive inspections of the underwing longeron 
fitting for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions 
if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such 
cracking, which could result in loss of the primary load path between 
the fuselage and the wing box, and consequent catastrophic damage to 
the wing box and failure of the wing.

DATES: This AD is effective September 11, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 11, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. 
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service 
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of 
this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. 
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2011 (76 FR 
78574). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive high frequency eddy 
current (HFEC) inspections of the underwing longeron fitting for 
cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if 
necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
(76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011), and the FAA's response to each 
comment.

Request To Use Revised Service Information

    Boeing, UPS, and United Airlines (United) requested that the NPRM 
(76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011) use the revised service information, 
which is Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated 
March 12, 2012. (The NPRM referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
767-57A0126, dated August 12, 2011, as revised by Boeing Service 
Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 1, dated November 9, 2011, as the 
appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the 
proposed requirements.) Boeing stated that the correction of the 
airplane variable effectivity table does not change the intent of the 
NPRM, because applicability paragraph (c) of the NPRM states that 
``This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F 
and -400ER series airplanes; certified in any category.'' Boeing also 
stated that including Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, 
Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012, in the AD might prevent confusion for 
operators of these airplanes.
    We agree with this request because Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012, clarifies inspection 
areas and

[[Page 46933]]

corrects various typographical errors. Since the NPRM (76 FR 78574, 
December 19, 2011) applied to all Model 767-200, -300, -300F and -400ER 
series airplanes, the corrected effectivity in Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012, does not affect 
the applicability of this AD. We have changed the final rule to 
reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated 
March 12, 2012. We have also added new paragraph (i) to the final rule 
to give credit for actions accomplished before the effective date of 
this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, dated August 
12, 2011, as revised by Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 
1, dated November 9, 2011, and re-identified subsequent paragraphs 
accordingly.

Request To Address Effects of NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011) on 
Winglets

    Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) commented that it has reviewed the 
NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011), and Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-57A0126, dated August 12, 2011, and has determined that 
the installation of winglets, per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 
ST01920SE, ``does not affect them.'' We infer that APB means the 
installation of these winglets does not affect accomplishing the NPRM.
    American Airlines (American) stated that the NPRM (76 FR 78574, 
December 19, 2011) does not refer to any effects this inspection or 
potential repair would have on aircraft equipped with APB winglets. 
American stated that the NPRM should include a reference to procedures 
or subsequent actions which may need to be taken over and above the 
repair, if a repair was to be installed on an airplane with such 
winglets.
    We agree that the AD should clarify procedures to address these APB 
winglets. We have added new Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD to state 
that installation of STC ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory-and-
Guidance-Library/rgstc.nsf/0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/
ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions 
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is 
installed, a ''change in product'' AMOC approval request is not 
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. For all 
other AMOC requests, the operator must request approval according to 
paragraph (j) of this AD.

Request To Increase Compliance Times

    United suggested the initial inspection compliance time of within 
3,000 flight cycles or 7,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, for 
airplanes that have accumulated over 70,000 total flight hours but less 
than 20,000 total flight cycles, be to changed to within 6,000 flight 
cycles or 14,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first. United also 
stated that, as an alternative for any airplane with less than 20,000 
total flight cycles and less than 90,000 total flight hours, the 
initial inspection threshold of ``within 3,000 flight cycles'' be 
imposed. United stated that imposing the 3,000-flight-cycle or 7,000-
flight-hour compliance times, whichever occurs first, might be more 
suitable for those airplanes with very high flight cycles, such as over 
30,000 or 35,000 total flight cycles.
    United stated it has reviewed its maintenance history and the most 
recent inspection results of maintenance planning data (MPD) structural 
tasks (53-622-00 and 53-632-00) on four of its high-time airplanes. 
United stated it had no findings, and based on its maintenance history, 
it considers the initial inspection threshold of 7,000 flight hours or 
3,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, on any airplane with more 
than 70,000 total flight hours to be overly aggressive for those 
operators, like United, that fly airplanes on long routes with very few 
flight cycles. With average flight hours of approximately 4,500 and 
approximately 650 flight cycles per year, United stated that the 7,000-
flight-hour initial inspection threshold will provide only an 
approximate 18-month window of opportunity to accomplish the initial 
inspection on many of its airplanes. United asserts that the 18-month 
threshold does not provide enough time to schedule this inspection on 
this many airplanes at a heavy maintenance environment, which is when 
it should be accomplished.
    We do not agree, because fatigue analysis is based on statistical 
methods. Statistics from four airplanes using only the MPD general 
visual inspections, without the benefit of an HFEC inspection, does not 
provide sufficient statistical justification to increase the compliance 
time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we 
considered the unsafe condition as well as the recommendations of the 
manufacturer, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required 
inspection within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal 
maintenance schedules of most affected operators. We have not changed 
the final rule in this regard.

Request To Revise On-Condition Costs

    UPS stated that the estimated on-conditions parts cost specified in 
the NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011) only reflect the cost for one 
wing.
    We agree. We have confirmed that one top-kit is required for each 
wing, and that the parts costs for both wings ranges up to $14,290. We 
have revised the estimated on-condition costs in the final rule to 
include the cost required for both wings.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial 
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
    <bullet> [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in 
the NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011) for correcting the unsafe 
condition; and
    <bullet> Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 78574, December 19, 2011).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the 
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The design approval holder is 
currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe 
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, 
approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 417 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive HFEC inspection.......  3 work-hours x $85               $0  $255 per inspection  $106,335 per
                                    per hour = $255                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46934]]

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspections and 
replacements that would be required based on the results of the 
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that 
might need these on-condition actions.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                  Labor cost                Parts cost                 Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tension bolt hole and front      104 work-hours x    Up to $14,290................  Up to $23,130.
 spar lower chord HFEC            $85 per hour =
 inspection and fitting           $8,840.
 replacement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 
cost estimates for cracking repairs specified in this AD.

Authority for this Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

2012-15-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17141; Docket No. FAA-
2011-1322; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-211-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 11, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Installation of Supplemental 
Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--
and--Guidance--Library/rgstc.nsf/0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/
$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the 
actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC 
ST01920SE is installed, a ''change in product'' alternative method 
of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply 
with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks of the underwing 
longeron fittings in the wing center section. We are issuing this AD 
to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in loss of 
the primary load path between the fuselage and the wing box, and 
consequent catastrophic damage to the wing box and failure of the 
wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    Except as provided by paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD, 
at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, 
Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012: Do a high frequency eddy current 
(HFEC) inspection to detect cracking of the underwing longeron 
fitting; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective 
actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 
12, 2012, except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Do all 
applicable related investigative and corrective actions before 
further flight. Repeat the inspection of the underwing longeron 
fitting thereafter at the applicable compliance time and intervals 
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012.

(h) Exceptions to Paragraph (g) of This AD

    (1) If, during accomplishment of the related investigative 
action required by this AD, any cracking is found and Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012, 
specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further 
flight, do the repair using a method approved in accordance with the 
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (2) Where Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 12, 2012, 
specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue date of this 
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified 
compliance time ``after the effective date of this AD.''
    (3) The Condition column of Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated March 
12, 2012, refers to total flight cycles and total flight hours ``as 
of the original issue date of this service bulletin.'' However, this 
AD applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles 
or total flight hours ``as of the effective date of this AD.''

[[Page 46935]]

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by 
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the 
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
57A0126, dated August 12, 2011, as revised by Boeing Service 
Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 1, dated November 9, 2011; both of 
which are not incorporated by reference.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local 
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in the Related Information 
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [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 required by this AD if it is approved by the 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization 
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make 
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must 
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must 
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 
98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
[email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service 
information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the 
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0126, Revision 2, dated 
March 12, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the referenced service information 
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this 
material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that 
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-18578 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

The complete text was extracted from the official GovInfo HTML edition for this publication. Acquired 2026-10-09T03:00:57.372619+00:00. Text extraction preserves the recorded source wording; it does not determine current requirements.

Open the captured official edition

Source SHA-256

83e39e8bb8ad5c3779f16408a5173b7adab42f0b5d1942b36060fe68bb88fd21

Text SHA-256

b1054629540bb74916cd53a9efe4b8c7145c7edcc5780783c73311fea0d2fdde