Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, 5195-5201 [2012-2301]
Download as PDF
5195
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 22
Thursday, February 2, 2012
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0607; Directorate
Identifier 2009–NM–024–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
We are revising an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Model 747–100B SUD, 747–300,
747–400, and 747–400D series
airplanes; and Model 747–200B series
airplanes having a stretched upper deck.
The original NPRM would have
superseded an existing AD that
currently requires repetitively
inspecting for cracking or discrepancies
of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear
webs, and frames at body stations 1120
through 1220; and related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary. The
original NPRM proposed to require
modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints
at body stations 1120 through 1220
(including related investigative actions
and corrective actions if necessary),
which would provide a terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. The
original NPRM also proposed to require
new repetitive inspections after the
modification, corrective actions if
necessary, and additional modification
requirements at a specified time after
the first modification. The original
NPRM also proposed to remove certain
airplanes from the applicability. The
original NPRM was prompted by reports
of cracked and severed tension ties,
broken fasteners, and cracks in the
frame, shear web, and shear ties
adjacent to tension ties for the upper
deck. This action revises the original
NPRM by adding repetitive open hole
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Feb 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking in the forward
and aft tension tie channels, and repair
if necessary. For certain airplanes, this
supplemental NPRM also requires a
one-time angle inspection to determine
if the angle is installed correctly, and reinstallation if necessary; and a one-time
open hole HFEC inspection at the
fastener locations where the tension tie
previously attached to the frame prior to
certain modifications, and repair if
necessary. This supplemental NPRM
also, for the Stage 2 inspections, reduces
the initial compliance times for those
inspections. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM to detect and
correct cracking of the tension ties,
shear webs, and frames of the upper
deck, which could result in rapid
decompression and reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by March 19,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed 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; email
me.boecom@boeing.com;
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
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 proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: (800) 647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6428; fax (425) 917–6590;
email: nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2009–0607; Directorate Identifier
2009–NM–024–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD (the ‘‘original
NPRM’’) to supersede AD 2007–23–18,
amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655,
November 23, 2007). The original NPRM
applied to all Boeing Model 747–100B
SUD, 747–300, 747–400, and 747–400D
series airplanes; and Model 747–200B
series airplanes having a stretched
upper deck. The original NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
July 13, 2009 (74 FR 33377). The
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5196
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
original NPRM proposed to supersede
an existing AD that currently requires
repetitively inspecting for cracking or
discrepancies of the fasteners in the
tension ties, shear webs, and frames at
body stations 1120 through 1220; and
related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. The original NPRM
proposed to require modifying the
frame-to-tension-tie joints at body
stations (STA) 1120 through 1220
(including related investigative actions
and corrective actions if necessary),
which would provide a terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. The
original NPRM also proposed to require
new repetitive inspections after the
modification, corrective actions if
necessary, and additional modification
requirements at a specified time after
the first modification. The original
NPRM also proposed to remove certain
airplanes from the applicability.
Actions Since Previous NPRM was
Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM
(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009), we have
received reports from one operator that
three adjacent tension ties were found
severed on a Model 747–300 series
airplane with approximately 18,400
flight cycles. Another operator reported
that two adjacent tension ties were
found cracked or severed on a 747–300
series airplane with approximately
14,000 flight cycles. In addition,
operators have reported finding cracks
in the tension ties and frames during the
inspection required by the existing AD
and done in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
dated April 21, 2005. We have received
revised service information, as
described below, and included it in the
supplemental NPRM as the appropriate
source of service information for
accomplishing certain actions.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010. Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005, was referred to as the
appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing certain
actions specified in the original NPRM
(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009). Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, adds
procedures for the following
inspections:
• For all airplanes: Repetitive open
hole HFEC inspections for cracking in
the forward and aft tension tie channels
at 12 fastener locations inboard of the
aluminum straps at STA 1140, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Feb 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
repair if necessary by doing an oversize
hole repair or repairing the tension tie.
• For certain airplanes: A one-time
detailed inspection to determine if the
angle is installed correctly, and reinstall if necessary.
• A one-time open-hole HFEC
inspection for cracks at the fastener
locations (STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and
1220) where the tension tie previously
attached to the frame, before
modification to the Boeing special
freighter or Boeing converted freighter
configuration, and repair if necessary by
doing an oversize hole repair or
repairing the frame.
The initial compliance times specified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010, for the new inspections at STA
1140 is before the accumulation of
10,000 total flight cycles or within 3,000
flight cycles after the issue date of
Revision 1 of the service bulletin,
whichever is later; with a repetitive
interval not to exceed 3,000 flight
cycles.
The compliance time for the new onetime inspection for mislocated angles is
within 3,000 flight cycles after the issue
date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010.
The compliance time for the new onetime inspection for tie frames at
previous tension tie locations is within
3,000 flight cycles after the issue date of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010.
We have also reviewed Boeing Service
Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1,
dated August 4, 2011. Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated
January 8, 2009, was referred to as the
appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the
actions in the original NPRM (74 FR
33377, July 13, 2009). No more work is
necessary for airplanes on which Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009, was used to
accomplish the actions. Certain
procedures specified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1,
dated August 4, 2011, have been
clarified to provide additional
instructions. We have revised paragraph
(k) of this AD to refer to Boeing Service
Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1,
dated August 4, 2011, and added a new
paragraph to give credit for actions done
before the effective date of the AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated January 8,
2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments
We have considered the following
comments on the original NPRM (74 FR
33377, July 13, 2009).
Support for Proposed Actions
United Parcel Service Co. (UPS)
supports mandating the Stage 2
inspections specified in the original
NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009).
Requests To Extend the Modification
Compliance Time
Lufthansa and KLM requested that we
revise the original NPRM (74 FR 33377,
July 13, 2009) to extend the compliance
time for the proposed modification.
Lufthansa requested a detailed
explanation about the decision making
that resulted in the compliance
threshold of 17,000 flight cycles
(damage tolerance analysis,
calculations, findings) for the proposed
modification, which seems inconsistent
in light of the Stage 2 inspection
threshold of 16,000 flight cycles.
Lufthansa requested that the FAA revise
the compliance threshold for the
proposed modification to 20,000 total
flight cycles.
KLM also stated that AD 2007–23–18,
Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655,
November 23, 2007), mandates Stage 2
inspections at 16,000 total flight cycles,
while the original NPRM (74 FR 33377,
July 13, 2009) mandates the
modification at 17,000 total flight
cycles, and it does not change the Stage
2 total flight cycles. KLM stated it
believes many other operators (in
addition to KLM) have started the AD
2007–23–18 Stage 2 inspections before
the 16,000 total flight cycles. KLM
stated that even though defects were
found with the Stage 2 inspections,
most of the defects have not propagated
to such an extent where they would
have been found with Stage 1
inspections. Furthermore, KLM stated
that the repair methods/procedures used
to repair defects found during the Stage
2 inspections have the same intent
(partial frame/tension tie replacement)
as the modification, and that the only
difference is that the design of the
modification is more durable, given the
fact that it has an 8,000 total flight cycle
threshold.
KLM stated that the Stage 2
inspection in AD 2007–23–18
amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655,
November 23, 2007) provides an
acceptable level of safety to at least
20,000 flight cycles, and therefore
proposes that the modification be an
optional terminating action for the Stage
1 and Stage 2 inspection in AD 2007–
23–18. KLM stated that if the FAA still
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
wants to mandate the modification, it
would like the FAA to consider reevaluating the modification threshold to
a more realistic threshold given the fact
that the Stage 2 inspection threshold is
16,000 flight cycles.
We agree with Lufthansa and KLM
that it seems inconsistent to have a
modification threshold of 17,000 total
flight cycles, which is just 1,000 cycles
more than the inspection threshold.
However, after issuance of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005, the manufacturer
completed additional analysis and
determined the new inspection
threshold should be lowered to 10,000
total flight cycles. The new inspection
threshold can be found in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010. We have
determined this reduced compliance
time is necessary to address the
identified unsafe condition and added it
to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
Since the issuance of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005, further cracking in the
fleet has occurred resulting in
thresholds being further reduced in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010. The modification threshold and
new inspection threshold are
appropriate given the quantity and
nature of cracks found on Model 747
airplanes, which are based on extensive
analysis. Due in part to the reporting
requirement of AD 2007–23–18,
Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655,
November 23, 2007), the manufacturer
received a significant number of
inspection findings. The findings
include numerous cases of single or
dual tension tie failure and one airplane
with three adjacent severed tension ties.
Because the findings constituted
multiple site damage, a damage
tolerance analysis alone was no longer
appropriate. Rather, a widespread
fatigue damage analysis had to be
employed to properly analyze the risk of
cracked and severed tension ties, and to
set inspection and modification
thresholds appropriately. The
manufacturer performed widespread
fatigue analysis and the FAA accepted
its findings.
The analysis, combined with the
empirical data, supported an inspection
threshold of 10,000 total flight cycles, as
reflected in Revision 1 of the Stage 2
inspection, and a modification
threshold of 17,000 total flight cycles.
Therefore, based upon crack reports
received, material analysis completed,
and widespread fatigue damage analysis
performed, the inspection and
modification thresholds contained in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Feb 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
this supplemental NPRM are
appropriate.
Request for an Optional Modification
UPS agreed that the modification will
strengthen the area and protect against
widespread fatigue damage. UPS stated
that the current Stage 2 inspections and
repetitive timeline are effectively
locating and repairing the discrepant
areas prior to any damages reaching a
critical length. Therefore, UPS proposed
the modification specified in paragraph
(m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377,
July 13, 2009) not be mandated. UPS
instead recommended that paragraph
(m) be offered as an alternative to the
existing Stage 2 inspections assigned
per paragraph (j). UPS stated it supports
the modification of the frames and
tension ties for the upper deck as
proposed in the original NPRM, but
suggested that the current Stage 2
inspections be allowed to continue as an
alternative to performing the
modification.
Airlines for America (A4A), formerly
known as the Air Transport Association
of America (ATA), on behalf of its
member United Airlines (UAL), and
Japan Airlines (JAL) both stated that the
modification is expensive. JAL noted
the expense is due to kit cost, labor cost
and the lack of warranty coverage. We
infer the commenters are requesting that
the modification be made optional due
to its cost. UAL also noted that even
after accomplishing the modification,
the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July
13, 2009) would still require post
modification inspections.
We disagree with the requests to make
the required modification optional. As
we stated previously, the crack finding
data and analysis performed support the
inspection and modification thresholds
in this supplemental NPRM. We have
not changed the supplemental NPRM in
this regard.
Request for Alternative Terminating
Modification
Lufthansa requested we allow
alternative terminating modifications.
Lufthansa stated that it is seeking
alternative solutions and intervals for
relief in view of the huge design
deficiency driven modification work
necessary for its Model 747 airplanes.
Lufthansa asked that an alternative
modification be allowed using new
parts with existing part numbers,
instead of mandating a modification
using new parts and new part numbers.
KLM noted that no alternative to the
proposed modification has been
considered.
We disagree with the request for an
alternative modification of the frame-to-
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5197
tension-tie joints proposed in this
supplemental NPRM. An alternative
method of compliance approving a
modification using new parts with
existing part numbers does not remove
all of the unsafe condition. The
modification in this supplemental
NPRM includes reinforcing the fuselage
frames; therefore ‘‘* * * using new
parts with existing part numbers instead
of mandating a modification using new
parts and new part numbers’’ does not
reinforce the fuselage tension ties or
frames, and would not address the
identified unsafe condition. We are
mandating the overall reinforcement
modification to achieve a long-term
acceptable level of safety. We have not
changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Request To Correct Errors in Service
Information
All Nippon Airways (ANA) and JAL
noted that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2559, dated January 8, 2009,
contains typographical errors. JAL asks
that these errors be corrected before an
AD is issued. ANA stated that Boeing
issued Service Bulletin Information
Notice 747–53A2559 IN 01, to correct
the typographical errors in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated
January 8, 2009. ANA asks that Boeing
Service Bulletin Information Notice
747–53A2559 IN 01 be included in this
supplemental NPRM.
Paragraph (m) of the original NPRM
(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009) refers to
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, as the
appropriate source of service
information for the proposed
requirements. Boeing corrected the
errors in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, by
issuing Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4,
2011. We have replaced all references to
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, with
Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559,
Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, in this
supplemental NPRM.
JAL stated that there are also errors in
the effectivity section of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated
January 8, 2009, and added that Model
747–400 Boeing Converted Freighter
(BCF) airplanes are not identified
correctly. Boeing added that the
effectivity should exclude airplane
RT743, which was converted to a Large
Cargo Freighter (LCF) airplane on which
the subject tension ties were removed.
Boeing stated that the airplane is
therefore not subject to the unsafe
condition. Boeing also noted that there
are currently no plans to revise this
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5198
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
service bulletin to remove that airplane
from the effectivity.
We do not agree to reidentify Model
747–400 BCF airplanes in the
applicability of this supplemental
NPRM. BCF airplanes continue to be
modified and as such, the applicability
in this supplemental NPRM follows the
group categorization of airplanes using
the Group/Configuration/Description
table in paragraph 1.A., ‘‘Effectivity’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. We
have not changed the supplemental
NPRM in this regard.
We agree to exclude airplanes that
have been converted to a Model 747–
400 LCF configuration from the
applicability of this supplemental
NPRM. That airplane configuration no
longer has the subject tension ties to
inspect or modify, so is not subject to
the unsafe condition. We have changed
paragraph (c) of this supplemental
NPRM to exclude those airplanes.
Request To Clarify Additional
Modification
ANA stated that paragraph (m) of the
original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13,
2009), proposed to require modification
and post-modification inspections in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated January 8,
2009. ANA noted that the additional
modification as specified in this service
bulletin is an open-hole HFEC
inspection, not a modification. ANA
asked that we revise paragraph (m)(2) of
the NPRM to clarify the term
‘‘additional modification’’ as an openhole inspection.
We disagree that the additional
modification is an open-hole HFEC
inspection. Paragraph (m)(2) of the
supplemental NPRM (also paragraph
(m)(2) of the original NPRM (74 FR
33377, July 13, 2009)) requires doing an
additional modification using a method
approved in accordance with the
procedures in the alternative methods of
compliance (AMOC) paragraph. At this
time, we have not approved a method
that meets the conditions for the
additional modification. However,
under the provisions of paragraph (s)(1)
of this AD, we will consider requests for
accomplishing a modification if data are
submitted to substantiate that it would
provide an acceptable level of safety.
Request To Change Cost Information
ANA stated that its work hour
estimate, based on the time it took to do
a modification identical to that in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2559, dated January 8, 2009,
exceeded 2,000 work hours. ANA added
that the estimated costs in the original
NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009) are
based on the work hours addressed in
this service bulletin. ANA asked that the
actual work hours be considered to
estimate the costs.
We disagree with the request. The
cost information in this supplemental
NPRM describes only the direct costs of
the specific required actions. Based on
the best data available, the manufacturer
provided the number of work hours
necessary to do the required actions.
This number represents the time
necessary to perform only the actions
actually required by this supplemental
NPRM. We recognize that, in doing the
actions required by an AD, operators
might incur incidental costs in addition
to the direct costs. But the cost analysis
in AD rulemaking actions typically does
not include incidental costs such as the
time necessary for planning, airplane
down time, or time necessitated by
other administrative actions. Those
incidental costs, which might vary
significantly among operators, are
almost impossible to calculate. We have
not changed the supplemental NPRM
regarding this issue.
FAA’s Determination
We are proposing this supplemental
NPRM because we evaluated all the
relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of these same type
designs. Certain changes described
above expand the scope of the original
NPRM. As a result, we have determined
that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment
on this supplemental NPRM.
Proposed Requirements of the
Supplemental NPRM
This supplemental NPRM would
require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information
described previously.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 561 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet,
which includes 67 U.S.-registered
airplanes. The following table provides
the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work hour.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Work hours
Parts
Stage 1 inspections (required by AD 2007–23–18,
Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, November
23, 2007)).
Stage 2 inspections (required by AD 2007–23–18,
Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, November
23, 2007)).
Modification (new proposed action) .............................
19 .................
$0 .................
$1,615 per inspection
cycle.
$108,205 per inspection
cycle.
83 .................
$0 .................
$7,055 ...............................
$472,685 per inspection
cycle.
257 to 263 ....
$363,179 to $367,845 .......
Post-modification inspections (new proposed action)
6 ...................
$341,334 to
$345,490.
$0 .................
$24,332,993 to
$24,645,615.1
$34,170 per inspection
cycle.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Depending
$510 per inspection cycle
Fleet cost
on airplane configuration.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Cost per airplane
16:24 Feb 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
the 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.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing amendment 39–15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007) and adding
the following new AD:
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA–
2009–0607; Directorate Identifier 2009–
NM–024–AD.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by March 19,
2012.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2007–23–18,
Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655,
November 23, 2007).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all The Boeing
Company Model 747–100B SUD, 747–300,
747–400, and 747–400D series airplanes; and
Model 747–200B series airplanes having a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:09 Feb 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
stretched upper deck; certificated in any
category; excluding airplanes that have been
converted to a large cargo freighter
configuration.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD results from reports of cracked
and severed tension ties, broken fasteners,
and cracks in the frame, shear web, and shear
ties adjacent to tension ties for the upper
deck. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking of the tension ties, shear
webs, and frames of the upper deck, which
could result in rapid decompression and
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007–
23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655,
November 23, 2007), With Revised
Compliance Times and New Service
Information: Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections
With Reduced Repetitive Interval
For all airplanes: Do detailed inspections
for cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners
in the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at
body stations 1120 through 1220, and related
investigative and corrective actions as
applicable, by doing all actions specified in
and in accordance with ‘‘Stage 1 Inspection’’
of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
dated April 21, 2005, except as provided by
paragraph (k) of this AD; or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1,
dated January 14, 2010. As of the effective
date of this AD only Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated
January 14, 2010, may be used. Do the Stage
1 inspections at the applicable times
specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD,
except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the
initial Stage 2 inspection required by
paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the
requirements of this paragraph. Any
applicable related investigative and
corrective actions must be done before
further flight. Doing the modification
required by paragraph (l) of this AD
terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
dated April 21, 2005, specifies a compliance
time relative to ‘‘the original issue date on
this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires
compliance before the specified compliance
time after April 26, 2006 (the effective date
of AD 2006–06–11).
(2) For any airplane that reaches the
applicable compliance time for the initial
Stage 2 inspection (as specified in Table 1,
Compliance Recommendations, under
paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005)
before reaching the applicable compliance
time for the initial Stage 1 inspection:
Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5199
inspection eliminates the need to do the
Stage 1 inspections.
(h) Compliance Time for Initial Stage 1
Inspection
Do the initial Stage 1 inspection at the
earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) At the earlier of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005.
(ii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total
flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after
November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD
2007–23–18, amendment 39–15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007)), whichever
occurs later.
(2) At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total
flight cycles.
(ii) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days,
whichever occurs first, after November 28,
2007.
(i) Compliance Times for Repetitive Stage 1
Inspections
Repeat the Stage 1 inspection specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD at the time specified
in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as
applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 250 flight cycles,
until the initial Stage 2 inspection required
by paragraph (j) of this AD has been done.
(1) For airplanes on which the initial Stage
1 inspection has not been accomplished as of
November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection
before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight
cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after the
initial Stage 1 inspection done in accordance
with paragraph (j) of this AD, whichever
occurs later.
(2) For airplanes on which the initial Stage
1 inspection has been accomplished as of
November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection
at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have accumulated
fewer than 12,000 total flight cycles as of
November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection
before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight
cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after
November 28, 2007, whichever occurs later.
(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated
12,000 total flight cycles or more as of
November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection
at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and (i)(2)(ii)(B) of this
AD.
(A) Within 250 flight cycles after
accomplishment of the initial Stage 1
inspection.
(B) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days,
whichever occurs first, after November 28,
2007.
(j) Repetitive Stage 2 Inspections With
Reduced Initial Compliance Time
For all airplanes: Do detailed and high
frequency eddy current inspections for
cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners in
the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at
body stations 1120 through 1220, and related
investigative and corrective actions as
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5200
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
applicable, by doing all actions specified in
and in accordance with ‘‘Stage 2 Inspection’’
of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
dated April 21, 2005; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated
January 14, 2010; except as provided by
paragraph (j) of this AD. Do the initial
inspections at the earlier of the times
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this
AD. Repeat the Stage 2 inspection thereafter
at the applicable times specified in paragraph
1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005.
As of the effective date of this AD only
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, may be
used. Any applicable related investigative
and corrective actions must be done before
further flight. Accomplishment of the initial
Stage 2 inspection ends the repetitive Stage
1 inspections. Doing the modification
required by paragraph (m) of this AD
terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total
flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles
after November 28, 2007; whichever occurs
later.
(2) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total
flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(k) Exception to Corrective Action
Instructions
If any discrepancy including but not
limited to any crack, broken fastener, loose
fastener, or missing fastener is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h)
or (i) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005;
or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010;
specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair the
discrepancy using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (s) of this AD.
(l) Reporting Requirement
At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, submit
a report of the findings (both positive and
negative) of each Stage 1 inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD to Boeing
Commercial Airplanes; Attention: Manager,
Airline Support; P.O. Box 3707 MC 04–ER;
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; fax (425)
266–5562. The report must include the
inspection results, a description of any
discrepancies found, the inspections
performed, the airplane serial number, and
the number of total accumulated flight cycles
on the airplane. Under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in this AD
and has assigned OMB Control Number
2120–0056.
(1) For any inspection done after November
28, 2007: Submit the report within 30 days
after the inspection.
(2) For any inspection done before
November 28, 2007: Submit the report within
30 days after November 28, 2007.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Feb 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
(m) New Requirements of This AD:
Modification
Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1)
and (m)(2) of this AD: At the times specified
in paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1,
dated August 4, 2011, modify the frame-totension-tie joints at body stations (STA) 1120
through 1220; do all related investigative and
applicable corrective actions; do the
repetitive post-modification detailed
inspections for cracking of the tension tie and
frame structure and all applicable corrective
actions; and do the additional modification.
Do all actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1,
dated August 4, 2011. Modifying the frameto-tension-tie joints at body stations 1120
through 1220 terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraphs (g)
and (j) of this AD.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559,
Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, specifies a
compliance time relative to ‘‘the original
issue date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD
requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011,
specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions or additional modification
requirements: Before further flight, repair the
cracking or do the modification using a
method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this
AD.
(n) Credit for Actions Accomplished in
Accordance With Previous Service
Information
Actions done before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated January
8, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding actions required by this
AD.
(o) Stage 2 Inspection: Additional Work at
STA 1140
For all airplanes: Except as provided by
paragraph (r) of this AD; at the time specified
in paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010; do an
open hole high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection for cracking in the forward
and aft tension tie channels at 12 fastener
locations inboard of the aluminum straps at
STA 1140, and before further flight do all
applicable repairs. Do all actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the
time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
‘‘Compliance.’’
(p) One-Time Inspection for Mis-Located
Angles
For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010: Except as provided by paragraph (r) of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
this AD; at the time specified in paragraph
1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated
January 14, 2010, do a detailed inspection to
determine if the angle is installed correctly,
and before further flight re-install all angles
installed incorrectly. Do all actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010.
(q) One-Time Inspection for Cracks in
Frames at Previous Tension Tie Locations
For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes;
and Group 2 and 3 airplanes; as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010: Except as
provided by paragraph (r) of this AD; at the
time specified in paragraph 1.E,
‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated
January 14, 2010, do an open hole HFEC
inspection for cracks at the fastener locations
(STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and 1220) where the
tension tie previously attached to the frame
prior to modification to the Boeing special
freighter or Boeing Converted Freighter
configuration, and before further flight do all
applicable repairs. Do all actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010.
(r) Exception to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2507, Revision 1, Dated January 14,
2010
Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, specifies
a compliance time relative to ‘‘the Revision
1 date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD
requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
(s) 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: 9-ANMSeattle-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 principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
(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
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
(4) AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2007–23–18,
amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655,
November 23, 2007), are approved as AMOCs
for the corresponding requirements of
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.
environmental assessment by March 5,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic
comments to https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written
comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Celeste Johnston, Center for Food Safety
(t) Related Information
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
(1) For more information about this AD,
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–
contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S,
3835, (240) 402–1282.
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax:
(section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))),
(425) 917–6590; email:
notice is given that a food additive
nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov.
petition (FAP 2A4785) has been filed by
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Ecolab, Inc., 370 North Wabasha St., St.
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Paul, MN 55102–1390. The petition
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
proposes to amend the food additive
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone
regulations in 21 CFR part 173,
(206) 544–5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766–
Secondary Direct Food Additives
5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
Permitted in Food for Human
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
Consumption, to provide for the safe use
(3) You may review copies of the
of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate as
referenced service information at the FAA,
an antimicrobial agent in produce wash
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
water without the requirement of a
information on the availability of this
potable water rinse.
material at the FAA, call (425) 227–1221.
The potential environmental impact
of this petition is being reviewed. To
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
encourage public participation
12, 2012.
consistent with regulations issued under
Michael J. Kaszycki,
the National Environmental Policy Act
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
(40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
placing the environmental assessment
[FR Doc. 2012–2301 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am]
submitted with the petition that is the
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
subject of this notice on public display
at the Division of Dockets Management
(see DATES and ADDRESSES) for public
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
review and comment.
HUMAN SERVICES
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written
comments regarding this document. It is
21 CFR Part 173
only necessary to send one set of
[Docket No. FDA–2011–F–0853]
comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the
Ecolab, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive
heading of this document. Received
Petition
comments may be seen in the Division
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
HHS.
FDA will also place on public display
ACTION: Notice of petition.
any amendments to, or comments on,
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
the petitioner’s environmental
Administration (FDA) is announcing
assessment without further
that Ecolab, Inc., has filed a petition
announcement in the Federal Register.
proposing that the food additive
If, based on its review, the Agency finds
regulations be amended to provide for
that an environmental impact statement
the safe use of sodium
is not required, and this petition results
dodecylbenzenesulfonate as an
in a regulation, the notice of availability
antimicrobial agent in produce wash
of the Agency’s finding of no significant
water without the requirement of a
impact and the evidence supporting that
potable water rinse.
finding will be published with the
regulation in the Federal Register in
DATES: Submit either electronic or
accordance with 21 CFR 25.51(b).
written comments on the petitioner’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:09 Feb 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5201
Dated: January 19, 2012.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2012–2279 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2011–1062]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Bear Creek, Dundalk, MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
change the regulation governing the
operation of the Baltimore County
highway bridge at Wise Avenue across
Bear Creek, mile 3.4, between Dundalk
and Sparrows Point, MD. The proposed
change will alter the four hour advance
notice requirement for a bridge opening
to a 48-hour advance notice requirement
for a bridge opening. Due to the lack of
openings, it is not necessary to have
personnel available on a four-hour
notice. The operating regulation change
will allow Baltimore County to more
efficiently utilize the maintenance
personnel who are responsible for the
operation of the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 2, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2011–1062 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: (202) 493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is (202) 366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5195-5201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2301]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 5195]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0607; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-024-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for all Model 747-100B SUD, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series
airplanes; and Model 747-200B series airplanes having a stretched upper
deck. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that
currently requires repetitively inspecting for cracking or
discrepancies of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear webs, and
frames at body stations 1120 through 1220; and related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary. The original NPRM proposed to
require modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints at body stations 1120
through 1220 (including related investigative actions and corrective
actions if necessary), which would provide a terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. The original NPRM also proposed to require new
repetitive inspections after the modification, corrective actions if
necessary, and additional modification requirements at a specified time
after the first modification. The original NPRM also proposed to remove
certain airplanes from the applicability. The original NPRM was
prompted by reports of cracked and severed tension ties, broken
fasteners, and cracks in the frame, shear web, and shear ties adjacent
to tension ties for the upper deck. This action revises the original
NPRM by adding repetitive open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels,
and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, this supplemental NPRM
also requires a one-time angle inspection to determine if the angle is
installed correctly, and re-installation if necessary; and a one-time
open hole HFEC inspection at the fastener locations where the tension
tie previously attached to the frame prior to certain modifications,
and repair if necessary. This supplemental NPRM also, for the Stage 2
inspections, reduces the initial compliance times for those
inspections. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and
correct cracking of the tension ties, shear webs, and frames of the
upper deck, which could result in rapid decompression and reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by March 19,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed 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; email
me.boecom@boeing.com; 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 https://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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone: (800) 647-5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6428; fax (425) 917-6590; email: nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0607;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-024-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD (the
``original NPRM'') to supersede AD 2007-23-18, amendment 39-15266 (72
FR 65655, November 23, 2007). The original NPRM applied to all Boeing
Model 747-100B SUD, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes;
and Model 747-200B series airplanes having a stretched upper deck. The
original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2009
(74 FR 33377). The
[[Page 5196]]
original NPRM proposed to supersede an existing AD that currently
requires repetitively inspecting for cracking or discrepancies of the
fasteners in the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at body stations
1120 through 1220; and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. The original NPRM proposed to require modifying the frame-
to-tension-tie joints at body stations (STA) 1120 through 1220
(including related investigative actions and corrective actions if
necessary), which would provide a terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. The original NPRM also proposed to require new repetitive
inspections after the modification, corrective actions if necessary,
and additional modification requirements at a specified time after the
first modification. The original NPRM also proposed to remove certain
airplanes from the applicability.
Actions Since Previous NPRM was Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009), we
have received reports from one operator that three adjacent tension
ties were found severed on a Model 747-300 series airplane with
approximately 18,400 flight cycles. Another operator reported that two
adjacent tension ties were found cracked or severed on a 747-300 series
airplane with approximately 14,000 flight cycles. In addition,
operators have reported finding cracks in the tension ties and frames
during the inspection required by the existing AD and done in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April
21, 2005. We have received revised service information, as described
below, and included it in the supplemental NPRM as the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing certain actions.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, was referred to as the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing certain actions
specified in the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009). Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010,
adds procedures for the following inspections:
For all airplanes: Repetitive open hole HFEC inspections
for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels at 12 fastener
locations inboard of the aluminum straps at STA 1140, and repair if
necessary by doing an oversize hole repair or repairing the tension
tie.
For certain airplanes: A one-time detailed inspection to
determine if the angle is installed correctly, and re-install if
necessary.
A one-time open-hole HFEC inspection for cracks at the
fastener locations (STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and 1220) where the tension
tie previously attached to the frame, before modification to the Boeing
special freighter or Boeing converted freighter configuration, and
repair if necessary by doing an oversize hole repair or repairing the
frame.
The initial compliance times specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, for the new
inspections at STA 1140 is before the accumulation of 10,000 total
flight cycles or within 3,000 flight cycles after the issue date of
Revision 1 of the service bulletin, whichever is later; with a
repetitive interval not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
The compliance time for the new one-time inspection for mislocated
angles is within 3,000 flight cycles after the issue date of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010.
The compliance time for the new one-time inspection for tie frames
at previous tension tie locations is within 3,000 flight cycles after
the issue date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010.
We have also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision
1, dated August 4, 2011. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009, was referred to as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing the actions in the original NPRM
(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009). No more work is necessary for airplanes
on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8,
2009, was used to accomplish the actions. Certain procedures specified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4,
2011, have been clarified to provide additional instructions. We have
revised paragraph (k) of this AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, and added a new
paragraph to give credit for actions done before the effective date of
the AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009.
Comments
We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM (74
FR 33377, July 13, 2009).
Support for Proposed Actions
United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) supports mandating the Stage 2
inspections specified in the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13,
2009).
Requests To Extend the Modification Compliance Time
Lufthansa and KLM requested that we revise the original NPRM (74 FR
33377, July 13, 2009) to extend the compliance time for the proposed
modification.
Lufthansa requested a detailed explanation about the decision
making that resulted in the compliance threshold of 17,000 flight
cycles (damage tolerance analysis, calculations, findings) for the
proposed modification, which seems inconsistent in light of the Stage 2
inspection threshold of 16,000 flight cycles. Lufthansa requested that
the FAA revise the compliance threshold for the proposed modification
to 20,000 total flight cycles.
KLM also stated that AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007), mandates Stage 2 inspections at 16,000 total
flight cycles, while the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009)
mandates the modification at 17,000 total flight cycles, and it does
not change the Stage 2 total flight cycles. KLM stated it believes many
other operators (in addition to KLM) have started the AD 2007-23-18
Stage 2 inspections before the 16,000 total flight cycles. KLM stated
that even though defects were found with the Stage 2 inspections, most
of the defects have not propagated to such an extent where they would
have been found with Stage 1 inspections. Furthermore, KLM stated that
the repair methods/procedures used to repair defects found during the
Stage 2 inspections have the same intent (partial frame/tension tie
replacement) as the modification, and that the only difference is that
the design of the modification is more durable, given the fact that it
has an 8,000 total flight cycle threshold.
KLM stated that the Stage 2 inspection in AD 2007-23-18 amendment
39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007) provides an acceptable level
of safety to at least 20,000 flight cycles, and therefore proposes that
the modification be an optional terminating action for the Stage 1 and
Stage 2 inspection in AD 2007-23-18. KLM stated that if the FAA still
[[Page 5197]]
wants to mandate the modification, it would like the FAA to consider
re-evaluating the modification threshold to a more realistic threshold
given the fact that the Stage 2 inspection threshold is 16,000 flight
cycles.
We agree with Lufthansa and KLM that it seems inconsistent to have
a modification threshold of 17,000 total flight cycles, which is just
1,000 cycles more than the inspection threshold. However, after
issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21,
2005, the manufacturer completed additional analysis and determined the
new inspection threshold should be lowered to 10,000 total flight
cycles. The new inspection threshold can be found in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. We
have determined this reduced compliance time is necessary to address
the identified unsafe condition and added it to paragraph (i)(2) of
this AD.
Since the issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
dated April 21, 2005, further cracking in the fleet has occurred
resulting in thresholds being further reduced in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. The
modification threshold and new inspection threshold are appropriate
given the quantity and nature of cracks found on Model 747 airplanes,
which are based on extensive analysis. Due in part to the reporting
requirement of AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November
23, 2007), the manufacturer received a significant number of inspection
findings. The findings include numerous cases of single or dual tension
tie failure and one airplane with three adjacent severed tension ties.
Because the findings constituted multiple site damage, a damage
tolerance analysis alone was no longer appropriate. Rather, a
widespread fatigue damage analysis had to be employed to properly
analyze the risk of cracked and severed tension ties, and to set
inspection and modification thresholds appropriately. The manufacturer
performed widespread fatigue analysis and the FAA accepted its
findings.
The analysis, combined with the empirical data, supported an
inspection threshold of 10,000 total flight cycles, as reflected in
Revision 1 of the Stage 2 inspection, and a modification threshold of
17,000 total flight cycles. Therefore, based upon crack reports
received, material analysis completed, and widespread fatigue damage
analysis performed, the inspection and modification thresholds
contained in this supplemental NPRM are appropriate.
Request for an Optional Modification
UPS agreed that the modification will strengthen the area and
protect against widespread fatigue damage. UPS stated that the current
Stage 2 inspections and repetitive timeline are effectively locating
and repairing the discrepant areas prior to any damages reaching a
critical length. Therefore, UPS proposed the modification specified in
paragraph (m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009) not be
mandated. UPS instead recommended that paragraph (m) be offered as an
alternative to the existing Stage 2 inspections assigned per paragraph
(j). UPS stated it supports the modification of the frames and tension
ties for the upper deck as proposed in the original NPRM, but suggested
that the current Stage 2 inspections be allowed to continue as an
alternative to performing the modification.
Airlines for America (A4A), formerly known as the Air Transport
Association of America (ATA), on behalf of its member United Airlines
(UAL), and Japan Airlines (JAL) both stated that the modification is
expensive. JAL noted the expense is due to kit cost, labor cost and the
lack of warranty coverage. We infer the commenters are requesting that
the modification be made optional due to its cost. UAL also noted that
even after accomplishing the modification, the original NPRM (74 FR
33377, July 13, 2009) would still require post modification
inspections.
We disagree with the requests to make the required modification
optional. As we stated previously, the crack finding data and analysis
performed support the inspection and modification thresholds in this
supplemental NPRM. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Request for Alternative Terminating Modification
Lufthansa requested we allow alternative terminating modifications.
Lufthansa stated that it is seeking alternative solutions and intervals
for relief in view of the huge design deficiency driven modification
work necessary for its Model 747 airplanes. Lufthansa asked that an
alternative modification be allowed using new parts with existing part
numbers, instead of mandating a modification using new parts and new
part numbers. KLM noted that no alternative to the proposed
modification has been considered.
We disagree with the request for an alternative modification of the
frame-to-tension-tie joints proposed in this supplemental NPRM. An
alternative method of compliance approving a modification using new
parts with existing part numbers does not remove all of the unsafe
condition. The modification in this supplemental NPRM includes
reinforcing the fuselage frames; therefore ``* * * using new parts with
existing part numbers instead of mandating a modification using new
parts and new part numbers'' does not reinforce the fuselage tension
ties or frames, and would not address the identified unsafe condition.
We are mandating the overall reinforcement modification to achieve a
long-term acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Correct Errors in Service Information
All Nippon Airways (ANA) and JAL noted that Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, contains typographical
errors. JAL asks that these errors be corrected before an AD is issued.
ANA stated that Boeing issued Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-
53A2559 IN 01, to correct the typographical errors in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. ANA asks that
Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-53A2559 IN 01 be
included in this supplemental NPRM.
Paragraph (m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009)
refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8,
2009, as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed
requirements. Boeing corrected the errors in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, by issuing Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011. We have
replaced all references to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009, with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, in this supplemental NPRM.
JAL stated that there are also errors in the effectivity section of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, and
added that Model 747-400 Boeing Converted Freighter (BCF) airplanes are
not identified correctly. Boeing added that the effectivity should
exclude airplane RT743, which was converted to a Large Cargo Freighter
(LCF) airplane on which the subject tension ties were removed. Boeing
stated that the airplane is therefore not subject to the unsafe
condition. Boeing also noted that there are currently no plans to
revise this
[[Page 5198]]
service bulletin to remove that airplane from the effectivity.
We do not agree to reidentify Model 747-400 BCF airplanes in the
applicability of this supplemental NPRM. BCF airplanes continue to be
modified and as such, the applicability in this supplemental NPRM
follows the group categorization of airplanes using the Group/
Configuration/Description table in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. We
have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
We agree to exclude airplanes that have been converted to a Model
747-400 LCF configuration from the applicability of this supplemental
NPRM. That airplane configuration no longer has the subject tension
ties to inspect or modify, so is not subject to the unsafe condition.
We have changed paragraph (c) of this supplemental NPRM to exclude
those airplanes.
Request To Clarify Additional Modification
ANA stated that paragraph (m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377,
July 13, 2009), proposed to require modification and post-modification
inspections in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. ANA noted that the additional
modification as specified in this service bulletin is an open-hole HFEC
inspection, not a modification. ANA asked that we revise paragraph
(m)(2) of the NPRM to clarify the term ``additional modification'' as
an open-hole inspection.
We disagree that the additional modification is an open-hole HFEC
inspection. Paragraph (m)(2) of the supplemental NPRM (also paragraph
(m)(2) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009)) requires
doing an additional modification using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures in the alternative methods of compliance (AMOC)
paragraph. At this time, we have not approved a method that meets the
conditions for the additional modification. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (s)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests
for accomplishing a modification if data are submitted to substantiate
that it would provide an acceptable level of safety.
Request To Change Cost Information
ANA stated that its work hour estimate, based on the time it took
to do a modification identical to that in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, exceeded 2,000 work hours. ANA
added that the estimated costs in the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July
13, 2009) are based on the work hours addressed in this service
bulletin. ANA asked that the actual work hours be considered to
estimate the costs.
We disagree with the request. The cost information in this
supplemental NPRM describes only the direct costs of the specific
required actions. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer
provided the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions.
This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions
actually required by this supplemental NPRM. We recognize that, in
doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental
costs in addition to the direct costs. But the cost analysis in AD
rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs such as
the time necessary for planning, airplane down time, or time
necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs,
which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible
to calculate. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM regarding this
issue.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these
same type designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of
the original NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary
to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this supplemental NPRM.
Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM
This supplemental NPRM would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 561 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet, which includes 67 U.S.-registered airplanes. The
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work
hour.
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage 1 inspections (required 19................. $0................. $1,615 per $108,205 per
by AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39- inspection cycle. inspection
15266 (72 FR 65655, November cycle.
23, 2007)).
Stage 2 inspections (required 83................. $0................. $7,055............ $472,685 per
by AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39- inspection
15266 (72 FR 65655, November cycle.
23, 2007)).
Modification (new proposed 257 to 263......... $341,334 to $363,179 to $24,332,993 to
action). $345,490. $367,845. $24,645,615.\1\
Post-modification inspections 6.................. $0................. $510 per $34,170 per
(new proposed action). inspection cycle. inspection
cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on airplane configuration.
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
[[Page 5199]]
products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
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]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing amendment 39-15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007) and adding the following new AD:
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2009-0607; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-024-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by March 19, 2012.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR
65655, November 23, 2007).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100B SUD,
747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes; and Model 747-200B
series airplanes having a stretched upper deck; certificated in any
category; excluding airplanes that have been converted to a large
cargo freighter configuration.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD results from reports of cracked and severed tension
ties, broken fasteners, and cracks in the frame, shear web, and
shear ties adjacent to tension ties for the upper deck. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the tension ties,
shear webs, and frames of the upper deck, which could result in
rapid decompression and reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266
(72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007), With Revised Compliance Times and New
Service Information: Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections With Reduced
Repetitive Interval
For all airplanes: Do detailed inspections for cracking or
discrepancies of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear webs, and
frames at body stations 1120 through 1220, and related investigative
and corrective actions as applicable, by doing all actions specified
in and in accordance with ``Stage 1 Inspection'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, except as provided by paragraph (k)
of this AD; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010. As of the effective date of this AD only
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010, may be used. Do the Stage 1 inspections at the applicable
times specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, except as
provided by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment
of the initial Stage 2 inspection required by paragraph (j) of this
AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph. Any applicable
related investigative and corrective actions must be done before
further flight. Doing the modification required by paragraph (l) of
this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this
paragraph.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, specifies a
compliance time relative to ``the original issue date on this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance before the specified
compliance time after April 26, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-
06-11).
(2) For any airplane that reaches the applicable compliance time
for the initial Stage 2 inspection (as specified in Table 1,
Compliance Recommendations, under paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005) before reaching
the applicable compliance time for the initial Stage 1 inspection:
Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 inspection eliminates the need
to do the Stage 1 inspections.
(h) Compliance Time for Initial Stage 1 Inspection
Do the initial Stage 1 inspection at the earlier of the times
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005.
(ii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 250 flight cycles after November 28, 2007 (the effective date
of AD 2007-23-18, amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23,
2007)), whichever occurs later.
(2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)
and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles.
(ii) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, whichever occurs first,
after November 28, 2007.
(i) Compliance Times for Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections
Repeat the Stage 1 inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD,
as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 250 flight cycles, until the initial Stage 2 inspection
required by paragraph (j) of this AD has been done.
(1) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 1 inspection has
not been accomplished as of November 28, 2007: Do the next
inspection before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 250 flight cycles after the initial Stage 1 inspection done
in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 1 inspection has
been accomplished as of November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection at
the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii)
of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 12,000 total
flight cycles as of November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection before
the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 250 flight
cycles after November 28, 2007, whichever occurs later.
(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 12,000 total flight
cycles or more as of November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection at
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and
(i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Within 250 flight cycles after accomplishment of the initial
Stage 1 inspection.
(B) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, whichever occurs first,
after November 28, 2007.
(j) Repetitive Stage 2 Inspections With Reduced Initial Compliance Time
For all airplanes: Do detailed and high frequency eddy current
inspections for cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners in the
tension ties, shear webs, and frames at body stations 1120 through
1220, and related investigative and corrective actions as
[[Page 5200]]
applicable, by doing all actions specified in and in accordance with
``Stage 2 Inspection'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005; or Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010; except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. Do the initial
inspections at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. Repeat the Stage 2 inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005. As of the effective date of this AD only Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010, may be used. Any applicable related investigative and
corrective actions must be done before further flight.
Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 inspection ends the repetitive
Stage 1 inspections. Doing the modification required by paragraph
(m) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of
this paragraph.
(1) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after November 28, 2007; whichever occurs
later.
(2) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(k) Exception to Corrective Action Instructions
If any discrepancy including but not limited to any crack,
broken fastener, loose fastener, or missing fastener is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h) or (i) of this AD, and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010; specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before
further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this
AD.
(l) Reporting Requirement
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2)
of this AD, submit a report of the findings (both positive and
negative) of each Stage 1 inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD to Boeing Commercial Airplanes; Attention: Manager, Airline
Support; P.O. Box 3707 MC 04-ER; Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; fax
(425) 266-5562. The report must include the inspection results, a
description of any discrepancies found, the inspections performed,
the airplane serial number, and the number of total accumulated
flight cycles on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1) For any inspection done after November 28, 2007: Submit the
report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) For any inspection done before November 28, 2007: Submit the
report within 30 days after November 28, 2007.
(m) New Requirements of This AD: Modification
Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD:
At the times specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011,
modify the frame-to-tension-tie joints at body stations (STA) 1120
through 1220; do all related investigative and applicable corrective
actions; do the repetitive post-modification detailed inspections
for cracking of the tension tie and frame structure and all
applicable corrective actions; and do the additional modification.
Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4,
2011. Modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints at body stations
1120 through 1220 terminates the repetitive inspection requirements
of paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, specifies a
compliance time relative to ``the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated
August 4, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions
or additional modification requirements: Before further flight,
repair the cracking or do the modification using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this
AD.
(n) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information
Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance
with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, dated January 8,
2009, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions
required by this AD.
(o) Stage 2 Inspection: Additional Work at STA 1140
For all airplanes: Except as provided by paragraph (r) of this
AD; at the time specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010; do an open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels
at 12 fastener locations inboard of the aluminum straps at STA 1140,
and before further flight do all applicable repairs. Do all actions
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at the time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance.''
(p) One-Time Inspection for Mis-Located Angles
For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010: Except as provided by paragraph (r) of this AD; at the time
specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, do a
detailed inspection to determine if the angle is installed
correctly, and before further flight re-install all angles installed
incorrectly. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010.
(q) One-Time Inspection for Cracks in Frames at Previous Tension Tie
Locations
For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes; and Group 2 and 3
airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010: Except as provided by
paragraph (r) of this AD; at the time specified in paragraph 1.E,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, do an open hole HFEC inspection
for cracks at the fastener locations (STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and
1220) where the tension tie previously attached to the frame prior
to modification to the Boeing special freighter or Boeing Converted
Freighter configuration, and before further flight do all applicable
repairs. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010.
(r) Exception to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1,
Dated January 14, 2010
Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, specifies
a compliance time relative to ``the Revision 1 date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(s) 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: 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 principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(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
[[Page 5201]]
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.
(4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-23-18,
amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) of this AD.
(t) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6428; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov.
(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; email
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
(3) 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2012.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-2301 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P