AD 2016-20-03

This AD is effective November 22, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 22, 2016.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3703.

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov.

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 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9367) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the skin lap splice is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive external detailed and surface HFEC inspections of the outer skin for cracking around fastener heads common to the inboard fastener row of the skin lap splice. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin lap splice, which could grow and result in possible rapid decompression and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of this AD as (c)(1) and added new 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 final rule. 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.

United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise the repetitive inspection intervals for any repair accomplished using the structural repair manual (SRM) specified in Part 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0260, dated August 26, 2014. UAL commented that a Zone B repair is Category B, and per the SRM inspections, the airplanes would have an initial inspection at 25,000 total flight cycles after airplane delivery. UAL stated that the initial inspection compliance time for the proposed rule is 40,000 total flight cycles, and if a repair is accomplished at this time, it is already over the initial inspection threshold specified in the SRM.

We agree with the commenter's request. There is a conflict between the initial inspection thresholds in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0260, dated August 26, 2014, and the Category B repair specified in the SRM. We are working with Boeing to revise the conflicting compliance times for the SRM repairs. We have added a new paragraph (h) in this AD, which provides clarification that the post-repair damage tolerance inspections are not required by this AD, but are airworthiness limitations (ALIs), and those inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. Any deviation from the post-repair ALI inspections will need FAA approval, but will not require an AMOC. We have coordinated this change with Boeing. We redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

UAL requested that we clarify the note in paragraph 3.B.l. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0260, dated August 26, 2014, to state that inspections for any repair accomplished as a result of Part 1 findings are to be inspected per the Part 1 inspection requirements and that these supersede the SRM inspection requirements. UAL stated that the note in Paragraph 3.B.1. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0260, dated August 26, 2014, currently states that it is not necessary to repeat the Part 1 inspections in areas covered by a previously approved repair.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Note (a) in paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” and the note in paragraph 3.B.1. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0260, dated August 26, 2014, specify terminating action for the AD-mandated inspections for the area under an approved repair. The repairs are evaluated under their own damage tolerance inspection program. The post-repair inspection program is different from the baseline inspections specified in Part 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0260, dated August 26, 2014. Post-repair damage tolerance inspections for any approved repair are ALIs, and these inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an AMOC. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We 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:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting 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 AD.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0260, dated August 26, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection and a surface HFEC inspection at section 41, stringer S-2R skin lap splice from body station (STA) 368 to STA 434, for any cracking, and repair. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 356 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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 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.

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

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

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