30486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: 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the NPRM is withdrawn.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FR 39633), is withdrawn.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 http://

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: 

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 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). 

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 

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 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 

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 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 http://

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 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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 

http://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

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on 

U.S. operators 

Retained inspection and replacement (AD 

2010–03–05, Amendment 39-16188 (75 

FR 5692, February 4, 2010)).

663 work-hours × $85 

per hour = $56,355.

$0 ............................... $56,355 per inspection/replacement 

cycle.

$1,408,875 per inspection/replacement cycle. 

New post-replacement inspections—section 

41.

Up to 525 work-hours 

× $85 per hour = 

$44,625.1

Manufacturer has not 

provided cost of 

parts.

$44,625 ...................... Up to $1,115,625. 

New inspections, replacement, and post-replacement inspections—section 42.Up to 525 work-hours 

× $85 per hour = 

$44,625.1

Manufacturer has not 

provided cost of 

parts.

$44,625 ...................... Up to $1,115,625. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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. 

(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 

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 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 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 http://

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS