AD 2018-11-08

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of two cracks at a certain frame inner chord. This AD requires a detailed inspection for any material review board (MRB) filler installed in the area from the frame web to the stub-beam fitting at certain stations to determine if the filler extends above the frame-to-stub-beam joint, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Final rule.

Adoption of the Amendment \n\n\n\tAccordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: \n\nPART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n0 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: \n\n\n\tAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. \n\n\n\nSec. 39.13 (Amended) \n\n0 2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): \n\n2018-11-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19296; Docket No. FAA- 2017-1099; Product Identifier 2017-NM-093-AD. \n\n(a) Effective Date \n\n\n\tThis AD is effective July 10, 2018. \n\n(b) Affected ADs \n\n\n\tNone. \n\n(c) Applicability \n\n\n\t(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, certificated in any category. \n\t(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/59027F43B9A7486E86257B1D006591EE?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01920se) 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. \n\n(d) Subject \n\n\n\tAir Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage. \n\n(e) Unsafe Condition \n\n\n\tThis AD was prompted by a report of a crack on the transition radius of the station (STA) 883.5 frame inner chord and an additional crack indication at a fastener hole in the frame inner chord common to a material review board (MRB) filler that extended above the frame-to-stub-beam joint. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the frame inner chord, which could result in the inability of one or more overwing stub frames between STA 808 and STA 933, each a principal structural element, to sustainlimit loads; this condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. \n\n(f) Compliance \n\n\n\tComply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. \n\n((Page 25894)) \n\n(g) Required Actions \n\n\n\tExcept as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the ''Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017. \n\tNote 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0278, dated June 30, 2017, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017. \n\n(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications \n\n\n\t(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, uses the phrase ''the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB,'' this AD requires using ''the effective date of this AD.'' \n\t(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. \n\t(3) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, that have been modified to a freighter configuration: The actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, for Group 1, Configuration 2, must be done instead of the actions for Group 1, Configuration 1, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. \n\t(4) For airplanes identified as Group 2, Configuration 1, in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, that have been modified to a freighter configuration: The actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017, for Group 2, Configuration 2, must be done instead of the actions for Group 2, Configuration 1, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. \n\n(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) \n\n\n\t(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. \n\t(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. \n\t(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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. \n\n(j) Related Information \n\n\n\tFor more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 S. 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3524; email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov. \n\n(k) Material Incorporated by Reference \n\n\n\t(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. \n\t(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. \n\t(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017. \n\t(ii) Reserved. \n\t(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740- 5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. \n\t(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. \n\t(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: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Discussion \n\n\n\tWe 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 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2017 (82 FR 57552). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a crack on the transition radius of the station (STA) 883.5 frame inner chord and an additional crack indication at a fastener hole in the frame inner chord common to a material review board (MRB) filler that extended above the frame-to-stub-beam joint. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection for any MRB filler installed in the area from the frame web to the stub-beam fitting at certain stations to determine if the filler extends above the frame-to- stub-beam joint, and applicable on-condition actions. \n\tWe are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the frame inner chord, which could result in the inability of one or more overwing stub frames between STA 808 and STA 933, each a principal structural element, to sustain limit loads; this condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. \n\nComments \n\n\n\tWe 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. Boeing concurred with the NPRM. \n\nEffect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions \n\n\n\tAviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM. \n\tWe 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 ST01920SE 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. \n\nRequest To Confirm Intent of Compliance Time \n\n\n\tParagraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD allowed operators to substitute ''the effective date of this AD'' for ''the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB.'' United Airlines noted that this wording is different from that of recent NPRMs, where the AD effective date is the sole compliance date. United added that the proposed wording suggested that the operator can choose to use either the AD effective date or the original issue date of the RB when determining the compliance timeline. United requested that we clarify the intent of the provision of paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD. \n\tWe agree with the commenter. We have revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to specify use of the effective date of this AD in determining the compliance time. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tWe 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: \n\tAre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. \n\tWe also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule. \n\nRelated Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 \n\n\n\tWe reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-53A0278 RB, dated June 30, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for any MRB filler installed in the area from the frame web to the stub-beam fitting on the left and right side at STA 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5 to determine if the filler extends above the frame-to-stub-beam joint, and applicable on-condition actions. The applicable on-condition actions include repetitive surface high frequency eddy current inspections and repair for cracking in the frame inner chord around the end fastener common to each affected MRB filler. 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. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 51 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n((Page 25893)) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\tEstimated Costs for Required Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per Cost on U.S. \n\tAction Labor cost Parts cost product operators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Detailed Inspection......................... 20 work-hours x $0 $1,700 $86,700 \n\t$85 per hour = \n\t$1,700 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tWe estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs of On-Condition Inspections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tLabor cost Parts cost Cost per product ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255 per $0 $255 per inspection cycle. \n\tinspection cycle. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tWe have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD. \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\n\tTitle 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. \n\tWe 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 ordevelop on products identified in this rulemaking action. \n\tThis 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tThis 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, \n\t(2) Is not a ''significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), \n\t(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and \n\t(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. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.