```

[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 The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that 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 http://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 http://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 http://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
```