Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, 30486-30490 [2014-12260]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
30486
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The FAA withdraws a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
would supersede certain existing
airworthiness directives (ADs) for The
Boeing Company Model 757–200,
–200PF, and –200CB series airplanes.
The NPRM proposed to require a
determination of the type of trailing
edge wedges of the leading edge slats,
repetitive inspections on certain trailing
edge wedges for areas of skin-to-core
disbonding, and corrective actions if
necessary; and proposed to revise the
applicability of the existing ADs to
include additional airplanes. The NPRM
also provided an optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspections.
Since we issued the NPRM, we have
determined that the manufacturer’s
service information is inadequate to
accomplish the actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition. Once the
manufacturer has issued new service
information to address the unsafe
condition, we may issue new
rulemaking action that positively
addresses the unsafe condition
identified in the NPRM. Accordingly,
the NPRM is withdrawn.
DATES: As of May 28, 2014, the
proposed rule, which was published in
the Federal Register on July 2, 2013 (78
FR 39633), is withdrawn.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2013–
0541; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD action, the NPRM (78
FR 39633, July 2, 2013), the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527)
is the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6440; fax:
425–917–6590; email: Nancy.Marsh@
faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
Discussion
We proposed to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 39) with a notice of proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 May 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
rulemaking (NPRM) for a new AD to
supersede AD 90–23–06, Amendment
39–6794 (55 FR 46499, November 5,
1990; AD 91–22–51, Amendment 39–
8129 (57 FR 781, January 9, 1992; and
AD 2005–07–08, Amendment 39–14032
(70 FR 16403, March 31, 2005), for
certain Model 757–200, –200PF, and
–200CB series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on
July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39633). The NPRM
proposed to require a determination of
the type of trailing edge wedges of the
leading edge slats, repetitive inspections
on certain trailing edge wedges for areas
of skin-to-core disbonding, and
corrective actions if necessary; and
proposed to revise the applicability of
ADs 90–23–06, 91–22–51, and 2005–07–
08 to include additional airplanes. The
NPRM also provided an optional
terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. The NPRM was prompted
by reports of slat disbonding on
airplanes on which the terminating
actions of ADs 90–23–06, 91–22–51, and
2005–07–08 were completed; and we
have received reports of slats
disbonding on airplanes outside of the
applicability of ADs 90–23–06, 91–22–
51, and 2005–07–08.
Actions Since the NPRM (78 FR 39633,
July 2, 2013) Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR
39633, July 2, 2013), we have
determined that the manufacturer’s
service information is inadequate to
accomplish the actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition.
FAA’s Conclusions
We have determined that the unsafe
condition identified in the NPRM (78
FR 39633, July 2, 2013) still exists. Once
the manufacturer has issued new service
information to address the unsafe
condition, we may issue new
rulemaking action that positively
addresses the unsafe condition
identified in the NPRM. Accordingly,
the NPRM is withdrawn.
Withdrawal of the NPRM (78 FR
39633, July 2, 2013) does not preclude
the FAA from issuing the related actions
or commit the FAA to any course of
action in the future.
Regulatory Impact
Since this action only withdraws the
NPRM (78 FR 39633, July 2, 2013), it is
neither a proposed nor a final rule and
therefore is not covered under Executive
Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Withdrawal
Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM,
Docket No. FAA–2013–0541, Directorate
Identifier 2011–NM–097–AD, which
published in the Federal Register on
July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39633).
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16,
2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–12258 Filed 5–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2014–0283; Directorate
Identifier 2012–NM–183–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010–03–
05, which applies to all The Boeing
Company Model 747–200C and –200F
series airplanes. AD 2010–03–05
currently requires, for section 41 upper
deck floor beam upper chords, an
inspection for cracks of certain fastener
holes, and corrective action if necessary;
and repetitive replacements of the upper
chords, straps (or angles), and radius
fillers of certain upper deck floor beams
and, for any replacement that is done,
inspections for cracks, and corrective
actions if necessary. Since we issued AD
2010–03–05, we have determined that
the upper deck floor beams are subject
to widespread fatigue damage (WFD),
the existing inspection program is not
sufficient to maintain an acceptable
level of safety, and section 42 upper
deck floor beam upper chords are
subject to the unsafe condition. This
proposed AD would add postreplacement inspections for section 41
and reduce certain compliance times.
This proposed AD would also require
repetitive inspections of section 42
upper deck floor beam upper chords,
repetitive replacements of the upper
chords, post-replacement inspections,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28MYP1.SGM
28MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
and corrective action if necessary. We
are proposing this AD to detect and
correct cracking of the upper chords and
straps (or angles) of the floor beams,
which could lead to failure of the floor
beams and consequent loss of
controllability, rapid decompression,
and loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by July 14, 2014.
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: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone
206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–
766–5680; Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 425–227–1221.
DATES:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2014–
0283; 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:
Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer,
Technical Operations Center, ANM–
100D, FAA, Denver Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 26805 East
68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, CO
80249; phone: 303–342–1086; fax: 303–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 May 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
342–1088; email: roger.caldwell@
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–2014–0283; Directorate Identifier
2012–NM–183–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
Structural fatigue damage is
progressive. It begins as minute cracks,
and those cracks grow under the action
of repeated stresses. This can happen
because of normal operational
conditions and design attributes, or
because of isolated situations or
incidents such as material defects, poor
fabrication quality, or corrosion pits,
dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can
occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally.
Global fatigue damage is general
degradation of large areas of structure
with similar structural details and stress
levels. Multiple-site damage is global
damage that occurs in a large structural
element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Global damage can also occur in
multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-sitedamage and multiple-element-damage
cracks are typically too small initially to
be reliably detected with normal
inspection methods. Without
intervention, these cracks will grow,
and eventually compromise the
structural integrity of the airplane, in a
condition known as WFD. As an
airplane ages, WFD will likely occur,
and will certainly occur if the airplane
is operated long enough without any
intervention.
The FAA’s WFD final rule (75 FR
69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD
rule requires certain actions to prevent
structural failure due to WFD
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30487
throughout the operational life of
certain existing transport category
airplanes and all of these airplanes that
will be certificated in the future. For
existing and future airplanes subject to
the WFD rule, the rule requires that
design approval holders (DAHs)
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the
structural maintenance program.
Operators affected by the WFD rule may
not fly an airplane beyond its LOV,
unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746,
November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance
actions if the DAHs can show that such
actions are not necessary to prevent
WFD before the airplane reaches the
LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend
on accomplishment of future
maintenance actions. As stated in the
WFD rule, any maintenance actions
necessary to reach the LOV will be
mandated by airworthiness directives
through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is
necessary to enable DAHs to propose
LOVs that allow operators the longest
operational lives for their airplanes, and
still ensure that WFD will not occur.
This approach allows for an
implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the
timing of service information
development (with FAA approval),
while providing operators with certainty
regarding the LOV applicable to their
airplanes.
On January 21, 2010, we issued AD
2010–03–05, Amendment 39–16188 (75
FR 5692, February 4, 2010), for all The
Boeing Company Model 747–200C and
–200F series airplanes. AD 2010–03–05
requires a high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection for cracks of certain
fastener holes, and corrective action if
necessary. AD 2010–03–05 also requires
repetitive replacements of the upper
chords, straps (or angles), and radius
fillers of certain upper deck floor beams
and, for any replacement that is done,
detailed and open-hole HFEC
inspections for cracks of the modified
upper deck floor beams, and corrective
actions if necessary. AD 2010–03–05
resulted from a report from the
manufacturer that the accomplishment
of certain existing inspections, repairs,
and modifications is not adequate to
ensure the structural integrity of the
affected upper chords of the upper deck
floor beams made of 7075 series
aluminum alloy on airplanes that have
exceeded certain thresholds. We issued
AD 2010–03–05 to prevent cracking of
the upper chords and straps (or angles)
of the floor beams, which could lead to
failure of the floor beams and
E:\FR\FM\28MYP1.SGM
28MYP1
30488
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
consequent loss of controllability, rapid
decompression, and loss of structural
integrity of the airplane.
Actions Since AD 2010–03–05,
Amendment 39–16188 (75 FR 5692,
February 4, 2010), Was Issued
Since we issued AD 2010–03–05,
Amendment 39–16188 (75 FR 5692,
February 4, 2010), we have determined
that replacement of the upper chord of
the upper deck floor beam is necessary
at body stations aft of station 520. Upper
chords of the upper deck floor beam aft
of STA 520 (540 through 740) are made
from 2024 aluminum, and these upper
chords aft of STA 520 have been
determined to be a structure that is also
susceptible to WFD. Ongoing inspection
of this structure is not sufficient to
maintain an acceptable level of safety,
and therefore replacement of the
structure is necessary. The
modifications and inspections of the
upper deck floor beams were developed
to support the airplane’s LOV of the
engineering data that support the
established structural maintenance
program. It has also been determined
that section 42 of the airplane is subject
to the unsafe condition.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2696, Revision 1,
dated April 12, 2012. For information
on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for Docket No. FAA–2014–0283.
FAA’s Determination
We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all the relevant information
and determined the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or
develop in other products of the same
type design.
Proposed AD Requirements
Although this proposed AD does not
explicitly restate the requirements of AD
2010–03–05, Amendment 39–16188 (75
FR 5692, February 4, 2010), this
proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2010–03–05. Those
retained requirements are referenced in
the service information identified
previously, which, in turn, is referenced
in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
proposed AD. This proposed AD would
require, for section 41 upper deck floor
beam upper chords, an HFEC inspection
for cracks of certain fastener holes, and
corrective action if necessary; and
repetitive replacements of the upper
chords, straps (or angles), and radius
fillers of certain upper deck floor beams
and, for any replacement that is done,
detailed and open-hole HFEC
inspections for cracks of the modified
upper deck floor beams, and corrective
actions if necessary.
This proposed AD would add postreplacement inspections for section 41
upper deck floor beam upper chords
and reduce certain compliance times.
This proposed AD also would require
repetitive inspections of section 42
upper deck floor beam upper chords,
repetitive replacements of the upper
chords, post-replacement inspections,
and corrective action if necessary.
Differences Between This Proposed AD
and the Service Information
The service bulletin specifies to
contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain
conditions, but this proposed AD would
require repairing those conditions in
one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that
we approve; or
• Using data that meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and
that have been approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) whom
we have authorized to make those
findings.
Explanation of Compliance Time
The compliance time for the
replacement specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established
to ensure that discrepant structure is
replaced before WFD develops in
airplanes. Standard inspection
techniques cannot be relied on to detect
WFD before it becomes a hazard to
flight. We will not grant any extensions
of the compliance time to complete any
AD-mandated service information
related to WFD without extensive new
data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD
affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to
comply with this proposed AD:
ESTIMATED COSTS
Cost on
U.S. operators
Action
Labor cost
Parts cost
Cost per product
Retained inspection and replacement (AD
2010–03–05, Amendment 39-16188 (75
FR 5692, February 4, 2010)).
New post-replacement inspections—section
41.
663 work-hours × $85
per hour = $56,355.
$0 ...............................
Up to 525 work-hours
× $85 per hour =
$44,625.1
Up to 525 work-hours
× $85 per hour =
$44,625.1
Manufacturer has not
provided cost of
parts.
Manufacturer has not
provided cost of
parts.
$56,355 per inspection/replacement
cycle.
$44,625 ......................
$1,408,875 per inspection/replacement cycle.
Up to $1,115,625.
$44,625 ......................
Up to $1,115,625.
New inspections, replacement, and post-replacement inspections—section 42.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Includes
time to manufacture parts.
We have received no definitive data
that would enable us to provide cost
estimates for the on-condition actions
specified in this proposed AD.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 May 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
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
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
E:\FR\FM\28MYP1.SGM
28MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Findings
We have 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 that the 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. Amend § 39.13 by removing
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010–03–
05, Amendment 39–16188 (75 FR 5692,
February 4, 2010), and adding the
following new AD:
■
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA–
2014–0283; Directorate Identifier 2012–
NM–183–AD.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
AD action by July 14, 2014.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2010–03–05,
Amendment 39–16188 (75 FR 5692, February
4, 2010).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all The Boeing
Company Model 747–200C and –200F series
airplanes, certificated in any category.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 May 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 53, Fuselage.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by an evaluation
done by the design approval holder (DAH)
indicating that the upper deck floor beams
are not adequate to ensure structural integrity
and are subject to widespread fatigue damage
(WFD). Inspections and modifications were
developed to support the airplane’s limit of
validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the established structural
maintenance program. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct cracking of the
upper chords and straps (or angles) of the
floor beams, which could lead to failure of
the floor beams and consequent loss of
controllability, rapid decompression, and
loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Inspection and Replacement for Section
41 Upper Deck Floor Beam Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Table
1 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012: At stations
(STA) 340 through STA 440, STA 500, and
STA 520, do an open-hole HFEC inspection
at all accessed fastener holes to detect
cracking; and install new upper deck floor
beam upper chords, straps, angles, and radius
fillers, in accordance with Part 2 and Part 3
of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
(h) Post-Replacement Inspections and
Replacements for Section 41 Upper Deck
Floor Beam Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Table
2 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012; or within
1,500 flight cycles after March 11, 2010 (the
effective date of AD 2010–03–05,
Amendment 39–16188 (75 FR 5692, February
4, 2010)); whichever occurs later: Do detailed
and HFEC inspections to detect cracking of
the replaced upper deck floor beam chords,
the floor panel attachment holes, and the
permanent fastener locations of the replaced
upper deck floor beam chords, in accordance
with Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2696, Revision 1, dated April 12,
2012. If no crack is found, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of
this AD.
(1) Do the detailed and HFEC inspections
of the replaced upper deck floor beam chords
within 3,000 flight cycles after the most
recent inspection, or within 300 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, and repeat thereafter at the
applicable time specified in Table 2 of
paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
(2) Do the open-hole HFEC inspection and
chord replacement required by paragraph (g)
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30489
of this AD at the applicable time specified in
Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012, or within
240 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the
inspections and replacement specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD at the applicable
time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E.,
‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012.
(i) Inspection and Replacement for Section
42 Upper Deck Floor Beam Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Tables
3 and 4 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012, except as
required by paragraph (l) of this AD: Do the
actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD as applicable.
(1) At STA 540 through STA 740 for Group
1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012: Do an open-hole HFEC
inspection to detect cracking, and install new
upper deck floor beam upper chord
replacements, in accordance with Part 7 and
Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
(2) At STA 540 through STA 780 for Group
2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012: Do an open-hole HFEC
inspection to detect cracking, and install new
upper deck floor beam upper chord
replacements, in accordance with Part 7 and
Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
(j) Post-Replacement Inspections and
Replacement for Section 42 Upper Deck
Floor Beam Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Table
5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012; or within
1,500 flight cycles after March 11, 2010 (the
effective date of AD 2010–03–05,
Amendment 39–16188 (75 FR 5692, February
4, 2010)); whichever occurs later: Do HFEC
inspections to detect cracking of the replaced
upper deck floor beam chords, in accordance
with Part 9 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747–53A2696, Revision 1, dated April 12,
2012. If no crack is found, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this
AD.
(1) Repeat the HFEC inspections of the
replaced upper deck floor beam chords
thereafter at the applicable time specified
Table 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
(2) Do the open-hole HFEC inspection and
chord replacement required by paragraph (i)
of this AD at the applicable time specified in
Table 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012. Repeat the
inspections and replacement, as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD, at the applicable
E:\FR\FM\28MYP1.SGM
28MYP1
30490
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
time specified in Table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012.
(k) Corrective Actions
If any cracking is found during any
inspection required by this AD, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (o) of this AD.
(l) Exception to Service Information
Specifications
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2696, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012,
specifies a compliance time ‘‘after the
revision 1 date on this service bulletin,’’ this
AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time ‘‘after the effective date of
this AD.’’
(m) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for the
installation of floor beam replacements
required by this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD
using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–
53A2696, dated October 16, 2008.
(n) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits, as described in
Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(o) 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 persons identified in
paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(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
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.
(p) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer,
Technical Operations Center, ANM–100D,
FAA, Denver Aircraft Certification Office,
26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver,
CO 80249; phone: 303–342–1086; fax: 303–
342–1088; email: roger.caldwell@faa.gov.
(2) For information about AMOCs, contact
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 May 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–
6432; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
bill.ashforth@faa.gov.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–
544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15,
2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–12260 Filed 5–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2014–0286; Directorate
Identifier 2014–NM–004–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737–600
and –700 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports
of cracking in a bulkhead lower frame.
This proposed AD would require a
detailed and open hole high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the
left- and right-side lower frame webs
and inner chords for cracking, if
necessary, and corrective actions and
preventative modifications, if necessary.
This proposed AD would also provide
for optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections under certain
conditions. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct cracking in a
bulkhead lower frame web and inner
chord, which could result in a severed
frame and induced skin cracks, and lead
to rapid decompression of the fuselage.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by July 14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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: Deliver to Mail
address above 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, WA 98124–2207;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1;
fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 425–227–1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2014–
0286; 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:
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6450;
fax: (425) 917–6590; email: alan.pohl@
faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2014–0286; Directorate Identifier 2014–
NM–004–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
E:\FR\FM\28MYP1.SGM
28MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30486-30490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12260]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2014-0283; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-183-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-03-
05, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-200C and -200F
series airplanes. AD 2010-03-05 currently requires, for section 41
upper deck floor beam upper chords, an inspection for cracks of certain
fastener holes, and corrective action if necessary; and repetitive
replacements of the upper chords, straps (or angles), and radius
fillers of certain upper deck floor beams and, for any replacement that
is done, inspections for cracks, and corrective actions if necessary.
Since we issued AD 2010-03-05, we have determined that the upper deck
floor beams are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), the
existing inspection program is not sufficient to maintain an acceptable
level of safety, and section 42 upper deck floor beam upper chords are
subject to the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would add post-
replacement inspections for section 41 and reduce certain compliance
times. This proposed AD would also require repetitive inspections of
section 42 upper deck floor beam upper chords, repetitive replacements
of the upper chords, post-replacement inspections,
[[Page 30487]]
and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect
and correct cracking of the upper chords and straps (or angles) of the
floor beams, which could lead to failure of the floor beams and
consequent loss of controllability, rapid decompression, and loss of
structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2014.
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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000,
extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0283; 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: Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer,
Technical Operations Center, ANM-100D, FAA, Denver Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver,
CO 80249; phone: 303-342-1086; fax: 303-342-1088; email:
roger.caldwell@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-2014-0283;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-183-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
Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD.
As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if
the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design
approval holders (DAHs) establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the structural maintenance program.
Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its
LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
On January 21, 2010, we issued AD 2010-03-05, Amendment 39-16188
(75 FR 5692, February 4, 2010), for all The Boeing Company Model 747-
200C and -200F series airplanes. AD 2010-03-05 requires a high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks of certain fastener
holes, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2010-03-05 also requires
repetitive replacements of the upper chords, straps (or angles), and
radius fillers of certain upper deck floor beams and, for any
replacement that is done, detailed and open-hole HFEC inspections for
cracks of the modified upper deck floor beams, and corrective actions
if necessary. AD 2010-03-05 resulted from a report from the
manufacturer that the accomplishment of certain existing inspections,
repairs, and modifications is not adequate to ensure the structural
integrity of the affected upper chords of the upper deck floor beams
made of 7075 series aluminum alloy on airplanes that have exceeded
certain thresholds. We issued AD 2010-03-05 to prevent cracking of the
upper chords and straps (or angles) of the floor beams, which could
lead to failure of the floor beams and
[[Page 30488]]
consequent loss of controllability, rapid decompression, and loss of
structural integrity of the airplane.
Actions Since AD 2010-03-05, Amendment 39-16188 (75 FR 5692, February
4, 2010), Was Issued
Since we issued AD 2010-03-05, Amendment 39-16188 (75 FR 5692,
February 4, 2010), we have determined that replacement of the upper
chord of the upper deck floor beam is necessary at body stations aft of
station 520. Upper chords of the upper deck floor beam aft of STA 520
(540 through 740) are made from 2024 aluminum, and these upper chords
aft of STA 520 have been determined to be a structure that is also
susceptible to WFD. Ongoing inspection of this structure is not
sufficient to maintain an acceptable level of safety, and therefore
replacement of the structure is necessary. The modifications and
inspections of the upper deck floor beams were developed to support the
airplane's LOV of the engineering data that support the established
structural maintenance program. It has also been determined that
section 42 of the airplane is subject to the unsafe condition.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1,
dated April 12, 2012. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0283.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Proposed AD Requirements
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2010-03-05, Amendment 39-16188 (75 FR 5692, February
4, 2010), this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD
2010-03-05. Those retained requirements are referenced in the service
information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would
require, for section 41 upper deck floor beam upper chords, an HFEC
inspection for cracks of certain fastener holes, and corrective action
if necessary; and repetitive replacements of the upper chords, straps
(or angles), and radius fillers of certain upper deck floor beams and,
for any replacement that is done, detailed and open-hole HFEC
inspections for cracks of the modified upper deck floor beams, and
corrective actions if necessary.
This proposed AD would add post-replacement inspections for section
41 upper deck floor beam upper chords and reduce certain compliance
times. This proposed AD also would require repetitive inspections of
section 42 upper deck floor beam upper chords, repetitive replacements
of the upper chords, post-replacement inspections, and corrective
action if necessary.
Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information
The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
In accordance with a method that we approve; or
Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.
Explanation of Compliance Time
The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service information related
to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained inspection and 663 work-hours x $0................ $56,355 per $1,408,875 per
replacement (AD 2010-03-05, $85 per hour = inspection/ inspection/
Amendment 39[dash]16188 (75 FR $56,355. replacement cycle. replacement
5692, February 4, 2010)). cycle.
New post-replacement Up to 525 work- Manufacturer has $44,625........... Up to $1,115,625.
inspections--section 41. hours x $85 per not provided cost
hour = of parts.
$44,625.\1\
New inspections, replacement, Up to 525 work- Manufacturer has $44,625........... Up to $1,115,625.
and post-replacement hours x $85 per not provided cost
inspections--section 42. hour = of parts.
$44,625.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes time to manufacture parts.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
[[Page 30489]]
Regulatory Findings
We have 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 that the 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
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-03-
05, Amendment 39-16188 (75 FR 5692, February 4, 2010), and adding the
following new AD:
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0283; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-183-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 14,
2014.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2010-03-05, Amendment 39-16188 (75 FR
5692, February 4, 2010).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-200C and -
200F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by an evaluation done by the design
approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper deck floor beams are
not adequate to ensure structural integrity and are subject to
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). Inspections and modifications were
developed to support the airplane's limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the established structural maintenance
program. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of
the upper chords and straps (or angles) of the floor beams, which
could lead to failure of the floor beams and consequent loss of
controllability, rapid decompression, and loss of structural
integrity of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Inspection and Replacement for Section 41 Upper Deck Floor Beam
Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012: At stations (STA) 340 through STA
440, STA 500, and STA 520, do an open-hole HFEC inspection at all
accessed fastener holes to detect cracking; and install new upper
deck floor beam upper chords, straps, angles, and radius fillers, in
accordance with Part 2 and Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012.
(h) Post-Replacement Inspections and Replacements for Section 41 Upper
Deck Floor Beam Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012; or within 1,500 flight cycles
after March 11, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-03-05, Amendment
39-16188 (75 FR 5692, February 4, 2010)); whichever occurs later: Do
detailed and HFEC inspections to detect cracking of the replaced
upper deck floor beam chords, the floor panel attachment holes, and
the permanent fastener locations of the replaced upper deck floor
beam chords, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision
1, dated April 12, 2012. If no crack is found, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do the detailed and HFEC inspections of the replaced upper
deck floor beam chords within 3,000 flight cycles after the most
recent inspection, or within 300 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and repeat thereafter at
the applicable time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
(2) Do the open-hole HFEC inspection and chord replacement
required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable time
specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated April 12,
2012, or within 240 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the inspections and replacement
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD at the applicable time
specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated April 12,
2012.
(i) Inspection and Replacement for Section 42 Upper Deck Floor Beam
Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Tables 3 and 4 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012, except as required by paragraph
(l) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this AD as applicable.
(1) At STA 540 through STA 740 for Group 1 airplanes identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012: Do an open-hole HFEC inspection to detect cracking,
and install new upper deck floor beam upper chord replacements, in
accordance with Part 7 and Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012.
(2) At STA 540 through STA 780 for Group 2 airplanes identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012: Do an open-hole HFEC inspection to detect cracking,
and install new upper deck floor beam upper chord replacements, in
accordance with Part 7 and Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2012.
(j) Post-Replacement Inspections and Replacement for Section 42 Upper
Deck Floor Beam Upper Chords
At the applicable time specified in Table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696,
Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012; or within 1,500 flight cycles
after March 11, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-03-05, Amendment
39-16188 (75 FR 5692, February 4, 2010)); whichever occurs later: Do
HFEC inspections to detect cracking of the replaced upper deck floor
beam chords, in accordance with Part 9 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision
1, dated April 12, 2012. If no crack is found, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Repeat the HFEC inspections of the replaced upper deck floor
beam chords thereafter at the applicable time specified Table 5 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
(2) Do the open-hole HFEC inspection and chord replacement
required by paragraph (i) of this AD at the applicable time
specified in Table 5 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated April 12,
2012. Repeat the inspections and replacement, as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD, at the applicable
[[Page 30490]]
time specified in Table 5 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1, dated April
12, 2012.
(k) Corrective Actions
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this
AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this
AD.
(l) Exception to Service Information Specifications
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, Revision 1,
dated April 12, 2012, specifies a compliance time ``after the
revision 1 date on this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time ``after the
effective date of this AD.''
(m) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for the installation of floor
beam replacements required by this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2696, dated October 16, 2008.
(n) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.
(o) 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 persons identified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2)
of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(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 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.
(p) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Roger Caldwell,
Aerospace Engineer, Technical Operations Center, ANM-100D, FAA,
Denver Aircraft Certification Office, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room
214, Denver, CO 80249; phone: 303-342-1086; fax: 303-342-1088;
email: roger.caldwell@faa.gov.
(2) For information about AMOCs, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
bill.ashforth@faa.gov.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12260 Filed 5-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
