Discussion \n\n\n\tWe issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003). AD 2003-18-10 applied to The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2012 (77 FR 10403). That NPRM proposed to continue to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the MPD document. That NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to incorporate an additional limitation, which terminates the existing requirements; and adding airplanes to the applicability. \n\nComments \n\n\n\tWe gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nRequest To Reduce the Scope of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) \n\n\n\tABX Air requested that we reduce the scope of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012). \n\tABX Air stated that the ''SUMMARY'' and ''Actions Since Existing AD was Issued'' sections of the NPRM imply that it is a result of an unsafe condition relating to certain cargo doors and flaps. ABX Air stated that the NPRM would require incorporation of the July 2011 revision of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document into the operator's maintenance program. ABX Air stated that requiring the complete revision is overreaching the AD's scope. \n\tWe disagree with reducing the scope of this final rule. The NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) stated that re-evaluation of certain doors and flaps prompted the new rulemaking. However, the re-evaluation was not limited to certain doors and flaps, but rather a complete review of the entire July 2011 revision of Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Limitations, of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. The AD is intended to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the principal structural elements (PSEs) listed in the July 2011 revision of Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Limitations, of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD \n\n((Page 44673)) \n\nDocument, as stated in the preamble of the NPRM. We have not changed this final rule in this regard. \n\nRequest To Revise Note 1 to Paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) \n\n\n\tBoeing requested that we revise the reference in Note 1 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) from FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a) to FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument&Highlight=faa ac 120-93). Boeing stated that the FAA has revised AC 25.1529-1 at Revision A, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a), to apply only to airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross weight; therefore, AC 25.1529-1A no longer applies to Model 767 airplanes. \n\tWe agree that FAA AC 25.1529-1A (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a) does not apply to airplanes identified in this final rule, and have determined that Note 1 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) is not needed. That note has been removed from this final rule. \n\nRequest To Remove Reference to Certain Document \n\n\n\tUnited Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we remove the reference to Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 767MPD Document from paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012). UPS stated that, if paragraph (g) of the NPRM is a restatement of the requirements of AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), then the July 2011 revision is not required. UPS stated that, if the intent was to indicate those revisions previously approved by rule or Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) approval, then paragraph (g) of the NPRM should state that those revisions were previously approved instead of referring to specific revision dates. \n\tWe disagree with the request to remove the reference. Including this reference in paragraph (g) of this final rule gives an option to the operator, and is not a requirement. No change has been made to this final rule in this regard. \n\nRequests To Permit Use of Later Revisions of MPD \n\n\n\tBoeing and AA requested that we permit the use of later revisions of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification MaintenanceRequirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. Boeing stated that since the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) was published, new revisions of that document have been released. \n\tWe agree to allow use of the most recent revision of the MPD (Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document), and have added this reference in paragraph (i) of this final rule accordingly. Operators may also request approval to use prior revisions of the referenced MPD as an alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of the final rule. \n\nRequests To Provide Grace Period \n\n\n\tABX Air, Japan Air Lines (JAL), and All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we add a grace period to paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012). \n\tABX Air requested a 44-month grace period to allow operators to revise their maintenance program and do the initial inspection and repair without putting the fleet out of compliance. ABX Air stated that airplanes that have exceeded the existing 25,000-flight-cycle compliance time would be out of compliance when the AD is published. ABX believes that extending the compliance time to 44 months will provide an acceptable level of safety. \n\tJAL requested we add a 24-month grace period to paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012). JAL stated that it has airplanes that have exceeded the proposed compliance time. \n\tANA requested that we change the compliance time for revising the maintenance program from 18 months to 45 months, or establish a grace period to coordinate with ANA's C-check maintenance schedule. \n\tAmerican Airlines (AA) requested clarification of the compliance times to address airplanes that are beyond the thresholds of the new tasks specified in Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. AA stated that operators will have airplanes out of compliance with the maintenance program when Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document is incorporated. \n\tWe find that clarification of the compliance time for the initial inspection is necessary. We have added a sentence to paragraph (i)(1) of this final rule to specify that the initial compliance times for the inspections are to be done at the applicable times specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document; or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later. \n\tIn developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, the time necessary to design an acceptable modification, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the modification. In light of these items, we have determined that the times specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document; or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD; for the initial inspection is appropriate. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of the final rule, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety. \n\nRequest To Allow Alternate Method To Track Rotable Parts \n\n\n\tBoeing requested that we change paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to allow Appendix 7 of FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument), or \n\n((Page 44674)) \n\nanother method approved by a principal maintenance inspector (PMI), as an alternative to the method for tracking rotable parts. Boeing stated that the current statement in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations-- Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document, is overly restrictive for the purpose of identifying fleet problems with an exploratory inspection program for removable structural components. \n\tWe do not agree with the commenter's request to change the method of compliance for tracking rotable parts. The Boeing MPD method is identical to, or less restrictive for fleet age than, the method described in FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument). This AC permits a ''conservative'' implementation schedule to be established. However, a ''conservative'' schedule is undefined and, therefore, unenforceable. As a result, the FAA guidance in the AC is inappropriate for inclusion in this final rule. No change has been made to this final rule in this regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of the final rule, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method for compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the alternative method would provide an acceptable level of safety. \n\nRequest To Require Maintenance Program Revision \n\n\n\tUPS requested that we revise the text of paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to require revising the maintenance program to incorporate the identified MPD documents. UPS stated that paragraph (g) of the NPRM requires operators to revise Subsection B of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document and Appendix B of Boeing 767 MPD Document. UPS noted that operators do not have control orrevision authority over the Boeing 767 MPD documents. \n\tWe agree with this request. We have revised paragraph (g) of this final rule to clarify how to revise the maintenance program. \n\nRequests To Permit Use of Later Revisions of Service Information \n\n\n\tBoeing and JAL requested that we permit the use of future FAA- approved revisions of the service information. \n\tWe disagree. Using the phrase ''later-approved revisions'' violates the Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. According to the provisions of paragraph (l) of this final rule, operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to use a later revision of the referenced MPD document as an alternative, if the request is submitted with substantiating data that demonstrate the later revision will provide an adequate level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard. \n\nRequests To Expand AMOC Section To Include Previous Approvals \n\n\n\tUnited Airlines (United), AA, and UPS requested that we expand the AMOC section of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to include previous approvals for AMOCs for AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003). \n\tWe agree with the request. Repairs previously approved as AMOCs in accordance with AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this final rule. We have added a new paragraph (l)(4) to this final rule accordingly. \n\nRequests To Expand AMOCs To Include Certain Repairs \n\n\n\tAA and Boeing requested that we expand the AMOC section to include repairs approved under section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) as acceptable methods of compliance. AA recommended that we approve as AMOCs to the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) all repairsapproved by a Boeing-authorized representative on parts listed in Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document that were found to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.571 and 14 CFR 26.43(d). Boeing recommended ''grandfathering'' existing repairs to new CMRs/structural significant items (SSI) provided adequate damage tolerance has been performed at repair approval. \n\tWe agree with the commenter. We have added a new paragraph (l)(5) to this final rule to allow the following repairs done before the effective date of this AD as acceptable methods of compliance where the inspections of the baseline structure cannot be accomplished: Repairs that are approved under both section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), to make those findings; provided that the repair specified an inspection program (inspection threshold, method, and repetitive interval); and that operators revised their maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the inspection program for the repair. \n\nRequest for Clarification of Certain AMOC Section \n\n\n\tBoeing requested that we revise paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to include inspecting as an alternative method to satisfy the damage tolerance requirements. (Paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM corresponds to paragraph (l)(3) of this final rule.) Boeing stated that doing so would clarify that, in cases where an operator cannot perform an inspection ''per D622T001-9 Subsection B and D622T001-DTR in baseline configuration,'' an alternate inspection type that satisfies the damage tolerance requirements can be used with an appropriate AMOC approval. \n\tWe disagree with adding the requested text to this final rule. Paragraph c. of Section 2-7 of Chapter 2, DER (designatedengineering representative) Authority and Limitations, of FAA Order 8110.37E, DER Handbook, effective March 30, 2011 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/3679F39DB79BB62A8625786A0066C662?OpenDocument&Highlight=8110.37e), does permit an authorized DER or other authorized representative to approve an alternative inspection method, threshold, or interval, where a new repair or modification results in the inability to accomplish the existing AD-mandated inspection, or necessitates a change in the existing AD-mandated inspection threshold. This delegation is already provided in paragraph (l)(3) of this final rule. No change has been made to the final rule in this regard. \n\nRequest To Clarify the Compliance Time for the Reporting Requirements \n\n\n\tDelta Airlines (Delta) requested that we clarify the compliance time for the proposed reporting requirements. Delta stated that the instruction in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Revision July 2011, or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD \n\n((Page 44675)) \n\nDocument, specifies reporting within 10 days. Delta requested a change to state that reporting is required within 10 days after the airplane is returned to service, instead of 10 days after each individual finding. \n\tWe agree with the commenter's request. We have added new paragraph (i)(3) to this final rule to clarify that the compliance time for reporting is within 10 days after the airplane is returned to service, instead of 10 days after each individual finding. We have also added new paragraph (j) to this final rule to include the Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement, and re-designated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. \n\nOther Changes to This Final Rule \n\n\n\tWe have moved the information from Note 2 of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) into paragraph (i)(2) of this final rule.We have clarified the language in paragraph (k) of this AD and added a reference to paragraph (l) of this AD. \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 AD 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 (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012). \n\tWe also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 417 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per Cost on U.S. \n\tAction Labor cost Parts cost product operators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revise airworthiness limitations 1 work(dash)hour x $85 $0 $85 $35,445 \n\t(retained action from AD 2003-18-10, per hour = $85. \n\tAmendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, \n\tSeptember 11, 2003)). Revise airworthiness limitations (new 1 work-hour x $85 per 0 85 35,445 \n\trequirement). hour = $85. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\nPaperwork Reduction Act \n\n\n\tA federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120- 0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200. \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 or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tWe have determined that 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 levelsof 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.