Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9367 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

16, 2016. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03996 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0254; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–180–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed a new airworthiness directive 

(AD), which would have applied to 

certain The Boeing Company Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and 

–900ER series airplanes. For certain 

airplanes, the NPRM would have 

required a one-time inspection for 

damage of the hydraulic actuator rod 

ends and actuator attach fittings on the 

thrust reversers, and repair or 

replacement if necessary. For all 

airplanes, the NPRM would have 

required repetitive inspections for 

damage of the hydraulic actuator rod 

ends, attach bolts, and nuts; repetitive 

inspections for damage of fitting 

assemblies, wear spacers, and actuator 

attach fittings on the thrust reverser; 

repetitive measurements of the wear 

spacer; and corrective actions if 

necessary. Since the NPRM was issued, 

the manufacturer notified us that an 

assumption regarding a failure mode of 

the rod ends or attachment fittings for 

the thrust reverser actuator used in the 

original safety assessment was incorrect. 

A new safety analysis was conducted 

and we determined that this issue is no 

longer a safety concern. Accordingly, 

the NPRM is withdrawn. 

DATES: As of February 25, 2016, the 

proposed rule, which was published in 

the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 

(76 FR 15864), is withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2011– 

0254; 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 (76 

FR 15864, March 22, 2011), 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: Tak 

Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6499; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: 

Takahisa.Kobayashi@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) with a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for a new AD for 

certain The Boeing Company Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and 

–900ER series airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15864) (‘‘the 

NPRM’’). For certain airplanes, the 

NPRM would have required a one-time 

inspection for damage of the hydraulic 

actuator rod ends and actuator attach 

fittings on the thrust reversers, and 

repair or replacement if necessary. For 

all airplanes, the NPRM would have 

required repetitive inspections for 

damage of the hydraulic actuator rod 

ends, attach bolts, and nuts; repetitive 

inspections for damage of fitting 

assemblies, wear spacers, and actuator 

attach fittings on the thrust reverser; 

repetitive measurements of the wear 

spacer; and corrective actions if 

necessary. 

The NPRM was prompted by reports 

of in-service damage of the attachment 

fittings for the thrust reverser actuator. 

The proposed actions were intended to 

detect and correct such damage, which 

could result in actuator attach fitting 

failure, loss of the thrust reverser auto 

restow function, and consequent loss of 

control of the airplane. 

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, the 

manufacturer has notified us that an 

assumption regarding a failure mode of 

the attachment fittings for the thrust 

reverser actuator used in the original 

safety assessment was incorrect. It was 

originally assumed that all hydraulic 

actuators attached to the thrust reverser 

have the failure mode (failure of the 

hydraulic actuator rod end or attach 

fitting due to severe wear-out) addressed 

in the NPRM. Based on field reports and 

design review, the manufacturer found 

that certain hydraulic actuators do not 

have this failure mode. Based on this 

new manufacturer finding, a new safety 

analysis was conducted and we 

determined that this issue is no longer 

a safety concern. 

FAA’s Conclusions 

Upon further consideration, we have 

determined that the safety concern 

identified in the NPRM does not affect 

The Boeing Company Model 737–600, 

–700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER 

series airplanes identified in the NPRM. 

Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. 

Withdrawal of the NPRM does not 

preclude the FAA from issuing another 

related action or commit the FAA to any 

course of action in the future. 

Regulatory Impact 

Since this action only withdraws an 

NPRM, 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). 

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–2011–0254, Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–180–AD, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15864). 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

15, 2016. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03693 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–3703; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NM–115–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9368 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 767–200, 

–300, and –400ER series airplanes. This 

proposed AD was prompted by an 

evaluation by the design approval 

holder (DAH) indicating that the skin 

lap splice is subject to widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed 

AD would require repetitive external 

detailed and surface high frequency 

eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the 

outer skin for cracking around fastener 

heads common to the inboard fastener 

row of the skin lap splice. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking of the skin lap splice, 

which, if not detected, could grow and 

result in possible rapid decompression 

and reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 11, 2016. 

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: 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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone: 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206– 

766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. It is also available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3703. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3703; 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: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6447; 

fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

wayne.lockett@faa.gov. 

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– 

2016–3703; Directorate Identifier 2015– 

NM–115–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 

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 

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 

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 ADs 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. 

We have received an evaluation by 

the DAH indicating that the skin lap 

splice is subject to WFD. As a result of 

WFD analysis, the stringer S–2R skin 

lap splice from station (STA) 368 to 

STA 434 requires additional 

supplemental inspection beyond the 

inspections specified in the Boeing 

Model 767 airplane maintenance 

planning document. This condition, if 

not corrected, could result in cracking of 

the skin lap splice, which could grow 

and result in possible rapid 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9369 

decompression and reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–53A0260, dated August 26, 

2014. The service information describes 

procedures for a detailed inspection and 

a surface HFEC inspection at section 41, 

stringer S–2R skin lap splice from STA 

368 to STA 434, for any cracking, and 

repair. This service information is 

reasonably available because the 

interested parties have access to it 

through their normal course of business 

or by the means identified in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

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 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between this Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3703.’’ 

The phrase ‘‘corrective actions’’ is 

used in this proposed AD. ‘‘Corrective 

actions’’ are actions that correct or 

address any condition found. Corrective 

actions in an AD could include, for 

example, repairs. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 356 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Inspections ......... 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$255 per inspection cycle.

$0 $255 per inspection cycle .............. $90,780 per inspection cycle. 

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. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2016–3703; Directorate Identifier 2015– 

NM–115–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by April 11, 

2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Boeing Company 

Model 767–200, –300, and –400ER series 

airplanes, certificated in any category, as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

767–53A0260, dated August 26, 2014. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder indicating that 

the skin lap splice is subject to widespread 

fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking of this 

skin lap splice, which, if not detected, could 

grow and result in possible rapid 

decompression and reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions 

At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 767–53A0260, dated 

August 26, 2014, except as required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a detailed 

inspection and a surface high frequency eddy 

current (HFEC) inspection at section 41, 

stringer S–2R skin lap splice from body 

station (STA) 368 to STA 434, for any 

cracking, and do all applicable corrective 

actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9370 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Service Bulletin 767–53A0260, dated August 

26, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions 

before further flight. Repeat the inspections 

thereafter at the applicable times specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 767–53A0260, dated 

August 26, 2014. If any existing external 

repair is found in the inspection area, then 

the inspections in Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–53A0260, dated August 

26, 2014, are not required in the area hidden 

by the repair, provided that the repair was 

previously approved by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), or by the 

Authorized Representative of the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA), or 

installed as specified in Part 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–53A0260, dated August 

26, 2014. Inspections in Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–53A0260, dated August 

26, 2014, remain applicable in areas not 

hidden by the repair. 

(h) Exception to the Service Information 

Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

53A0260, dated August 26, 2014, specifies a 

compliance time ‘‘after the original issue date 

of this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 

paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@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, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. To be approved, the 

repair method, modification deviation, or 

alteration deviation must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD: For service information that 

contains steps that are labeled as Required 

for Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. An AMOC is required 

for any deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6447; fax: 425– 

917–6590; email: wayne.lockett@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, 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 February 

15, 2016. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03698 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–3702; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NM–103–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) 2013–24– 

12, which applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 747–8 and 747–8F 

airplanes. AD 2013–24–12 currently 

requires repetitive ultrasonic or dye 

penetrant inspections for cracking of the 

barrel nuts and bolts on each forward 

engine mount, and related investigative 

and corrective actions if necessary. 

Since we issued AD 2013–24–12, we 

have determined that it is necessary to 

mandate the installation of new barrel 

nuts or new inspections to adequately 

address the unsafe condition. This 

proposed AD would retain the 

requirements of AD 2013–24–12 and 

add requirements to install new barrel 

nuts at the forward engine mounts; or 

identify the part number of the barrel 

nuts, inspect affected barrel nuts for 

gaps of the strut bulkhead and forward 

engine mount, and do related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

also remove airplanes from the 

applicability. We are proposing this AD 

to detect and correct cracked barrel nuts 

on a forward engine mount, which 

could result in reduced load capacity of 

the forward engine mount, separation of 

an engine under power from the 

airplane, and consequent loss of control 

of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 11, 2016. 

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: 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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H– 

65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone: 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206– 

766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. It is also available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3702. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

3702; 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS