
[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 50692-50695]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-7]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1363; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-104-AD; 
Amendment 39-16032; AD 2009-20-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

 
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F 
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 
Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This AD 
requires repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking and corrosion of 
the upper link

[[Page 50693]]

fuse pin of the nacelle struts, and related investigative and 
corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides terminating 
action for the repetitive inspections. This AD results from two reports 
of cracked upper link fuse pins. We are issuing this AD to prevent 
fatigue cracking or corrosion of the upper link fuse pin, which could 
result in failure of the fuse pin and consequent reduced structural 
integrity of the nacelle strut and possible separation of the strut and 
engine from the airplane during flight.

DATES: This AD is effective November 5, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 5, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; 
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 (telephone 800-647-5527) is the 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; telephone 
(425) 917-6577; fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to 
certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That 
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 
1155). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for fatigue 
cracking and corrosion of the upper link fuse pin of the nacelle 
struts, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. 
That NPRM also proposed to provide terminating action for the 
repetitive inspections.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Support for the AD

    Boeing concurs with the content of the NPRM. Air Transport 
Association (ATA) on behalf of its members Delta Airlines and United 
Airlines (UAL) agrees with the intent of the NRPM, and provides the 
following recommendations from its members.

Request to Add a Note of Clarification

    Delta asks that we revise the NPRM to include a note in the AD 
which specifies that the upper link inspections can be done with the 
pylon and/or engine in any position. Delta states that Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008, 
specifies doing a visual inspection with ``the fuse pin in place, 
without engine removal and strut removal.'' Delta notes that there are 
times when engines or pylons are removed for other reasons, and it 
would prefer not to wait until the engine and strut are reinstalled. 
Delta states that the procedures specified in Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008, allow fuse pin 
inspections with the engines and pylons in any position. Delta adds 
that related service information, Boeing Telex 1-1154785301, dated 
January 21, 2009 (released after the NPRM was issued), specifies that 
the upper link inspections can be done with the pylon and/or engine in 
any position.
    We agree with the commenter's request. For the reasons provided by 
Delta, we have included a new Note 1 after paragraph (f) of this AD to 
specify that the upper link inspections can be done with the pylon and/
or engine in any position.

Request to Define ``References''

    Delta asks that we revise the NPRM to include a note to clarify 
that the ``References'' column in the table in Figure 2 of Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008, should 
be treated as ``refer to'' material (which is information that provides 
guidance for using related procedures), as defined in Note 9 of 
paragraph 3.A. of that service bulletin. Delta points out that the 
procedures in Boeing Telex 1-1154785301, dated January 21, 2009, 
specify that the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) and standard 
operating procedures manual (SOPM) are identified in the ``References'' 
column of that table as ``refer to'' material so that operator 
equivalent procedures may be used.
    We agree that the material in the ``References'' column in the 
table in Figure 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, 
Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008, refers to the procedures in the 
specified manuals and should be treated as guidance for using related 
procedures. However, to add a note to this AD could be confusing 
because none of the paragraphs in the AD refer to the procedures in 
those manuals. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this 
regard.

Request to Add a Note Clarifying Application of Primer

    Delta asks that we revise the NPRM to include a note to clarify 
that re-application of primer in accordance with Steps 4.b.(1) and 
4.b.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008, is necessary 
only to touch up bare areas of the fuse pin. Delta states that 
paragraph 3.B, Step 4.b., of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008, 
specifies applying two coats of Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 10-
11 primer after each inspection if no cracks are found during the 
inspection. Delta notes that the procedure does not specify ``touching 
up primer'' but rather applying two coats each time. Delta adds that 
since the repeat inspection interval is much shorter, the fuse pin will 
have ten coats of primer built up over the next ten years, and asserts 
that the inspection cannot be done through ten coats of primer. Delta 
points out that Boeing has confirmed in Boeing Telex 1-1154785301, 
dated January 21, 2009, that two coats of primer are required only to 
touch up bare areas on the fuse pin.
    We agree that clarification is necessary for the reasons provided 
by Delta. We have included a new Note 2 after paragraph (f) of this AD 
to specify that two coats of primer are necessary only to touch up bare 
areas of the fuse pin.

Request to Provide Credit for Inspections Done Using Previous Service 
Information

    UAL asks that operators be given credit for inspections done before 
the effective date of the AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 
767-54-0074, dated March 27, 1997. UAL notes

[[Page 50694]]

that paragraph (h) of the NPRM provides credit for the replacement of 
fuse pins done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-54-0074, 
dated March 27, 1997, but does not provide credit for the inspections, 
even though the procedures in the original issue and Revision 1 of the 
service bulletin are the same.
    We agree with the commenter. We have confirmed that inspections 
done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing 
Service Bulletin 767-54-0074, dated March 27, 1997, are acceptable for 
compliance with the inspection requirements of paragraph (f) of this 
AD. However, we point out that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-54-0074, 
dated March 27, 1997, allows the use of operator's equivalent 
procedures, which Boeing Service Bulletin 767-54-0074, Revision 1, 
dated April 24, 2008, does not allow. Therefore, we have revised 
paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit for inspections done before the 
effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 
767-54-0074, dated March 27, 1997, provided that the inspection was not 
done using operator's equivalent procedures.

Request to Clarify Certain Language in Paragraph (h) of the NPRM

    UAL suggests that paragraph (h) of the NPRM be revised to clarify 
the meaning of ``corresponding requirements.'' UAL states that 
paragraph (h) of the NPRM specifies that replacement of the fuse pins 
in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-54-0074, dated March 27, 
1997, is acceptable for compliance with the ``corresponding 
requirements'' of this AD. UAL notes that the phrase ``for compliance 
with the `corresponding requirements' of this AD'' is very vague.
    We agree that clarification is necessary for the reasons provided 
by the commenter. We have changed paragraph (h) of this AD to refer to 
paragraph (f) of this AD for the inspections and paragraph (g) of this 
AD for the modification.

Request to Extend Grace Period

    Aeroflot asks that we increase the grace period for the inspections 
so that operators can prepare for accomplishment of the requirements in 
the AD. Aeroflot states that it is convenient to plan the work with 
common access SC-Checks, and adds that the NPRM gives a simple C-Check 
preparation period. Aeroflot states that this work has an economic 
impact with the time used in preparation and gaining access.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. In developing an 
appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the 
safety implications, but the manufacturer's recommendations, and the 
practical aspect of accomplishing the actions within an interval of 
time that corresponds to typical scheduled maintenance for affected 
operators. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, 
we may consider requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data 
are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an 
acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the 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 
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that 
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 354 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 
also estimate that it will take 4 work-hours per product to comply with 
this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these 
figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be 
$113,280, or $320 per product.

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), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of 
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2009-20-09 Boeing: Amendment 39-16032. Docket No. FAA-2008-1363; 
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-104-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 5, 
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F 
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 
24, 2008.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from two reports of cracked upper link fuse 
pins. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking or 
corrosion of the upper link fuse pin, which could result in failure 
of the fuse pin and consequent reduced structural integrity of the 
nacelle strut and possible separation of the strut and engine from 
the airplane during flight.

Compliance

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

[[Page 50695]]

Initial and Repetitive Inspections/Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (f) Inspect the upper link fuse pin of the nacelle struts for 
fatigue cracking and corrosion at the applicable time specified in 
Table 1 of this AD. Do the applicable inspection by doing all the 
applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 
24, 2008; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective 
actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection at 
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever 
is first, until the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD have 
been done.

                        Table 1--Compliance Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                At the later of:
         Engine type           initial inspection       Grace period
                                    threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JT9D........................  14,000 total flight   Within 3,000 flight
                               cycles.               cycles or 18 months
                                                     after the effective
                                                     date of this AD,
                                                     whichever is first.
CF6-80A.....................  24,000 total flight   Within 3,000 flight
                               cycles.               cycles or 18 months
                                                     after the effective
                                                     date of this AD,
                                                     whichever is first.
PW4000......................  8,000 total flight    Within 3,000 flight
                               cycles.               cycles or 18 months
                                                     after the effective
                                                     date of this AD,
                                                     whichever is first.
CF6-80C2....................  10,000 total flight   Within 3,000 flight
                               cycles.               cycles or 18 months
                                                     after the effective
                                                     date of this AD,
                                                     whichever is first.
RB211.......................  24,000 total flight   Within 3,000 flight
                               cycles.               cycles or 18 months
                                                     after the effective
                                                     date of this AD,
                                                     whichever is first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note 1: The upper link inspections can be done with the pylon 
and/or engine in any position.


    Note 2: In paragraph 3.B, Steps 4.b.(1)(a) and 
4.b.(2)(b)2){a{time}  of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, Revision 1, dated April 24, 
2008, the procedures specify to apply two layers of Boeing Material 
Specification (BMS) 10-11 primer to the inside surface of the fuse 
pin if no crack indication is found. However, two layers of primer 
are only necessary to touch up bare areas on the fuse pin if no 
crack indication is found.

Terminating Action in AD 2000-19-09, Amendment 39-11910, and AD 2004-
16-12, Amendment 39-13768

    (g) Accomplishment of the modification specified in paragraph 
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the 
inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (1) For Model 767 series airplanes powered by Rolls-Royce RB211 
series engines, as identified in AD 2000-19-09: Modification of the 
nacelle strut and wing structure, as required by paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of AD 2000-19-09.
    (2) For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes powered 
by Pratt & Whitney and General Electric engines, as identified in AD 
2004-16-12: Modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure, as 
required by paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of AD 2004-16-12.

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

    (h) Inspection of the fuse pins before the effective date of 
this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-54-0074, 
dated March 27, 1997, is acceptable for compliance with the 
inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD if the inspections 
are accomplished without using an operator's equivalent procedure. 
Replacement of the fuse pins with new fuse pins before the effective 
date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-54-
0074, dated March 27, 1997, is acceptable for compliance with the 
modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, ATTN: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-
120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6577; fax (425) 917-6590; has the 
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-
Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. 
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA 
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an 
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized 
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis 
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this 
AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-54A0074, 
Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008; to do the actions required by this 
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; e-mail 
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at 
the FAA, call 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that 
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 18, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-23506 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
